Posts com Tag ‘recessão’


WASHINGTON (AFP) — US President Barack Obama has defended the dollar as “extraordinarily strong” and rejected China’s call for a new global currency as an alternative to the dollar.

He said investors considered the United States “the strongest economy in the world with the most stable political system in the world” even as it was reeling from a prolonged recession stemming from financial turmoil.

People’s Bank of China Governor Zhou Xiaochuan had called for a replacement of the dollar, installed as the reserve currency after World War II, with a different standard run by the International Monetary Fund.

“As far as confidence in the US economy or the dollar, I would just point out that the dollar is extraordinarily strong right now,” Obama told a White House press conference on Tuesday.

He said that although the United States was “going through a rough patch” at present, it enjoyed a “great deal of confidence” from investors.

“So you don’t have to take my word for it,” he said.

“I don’t believe there is a need for a global currency,” Obama said, in what appeared to be a break from tradition among US presidents not to comment directly on the dollar’s value.

Zhou suggested the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights, a currency basket comprising dollars, euros, sterling and yen, could serve as a super-sovereign reserve currency, saying it would not be easily influenced by the policies of individual countries.

China is the largest creditor to the United States, being the top holder of US Treasury bonds worth 739.6 billion dollars as of January, according to US figures. It is also the world’s largest holder of US dollars as a reserve currency, at more than one trillion dollars.

Zhou’s comments came just two weeks after Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, in a rare expression of concern, called on US economic planners to safeguard Chinese assets.

“We have lent huge amounts of money to the United States. Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets,” Wen said as the United States grappled with the worst financial turmoil since the Great Depression.

The latest Chinese concern came as the dollar took a beating following the Federal Reserve’s decision last week to buy up to 300 billion dollars in long-term US Treasury bonds and boost its purchases of mortgage securities by 750 billion dollars in an effort to revive the ailing economy.

The decision, according to foreign exchange dealers, made US assets less attractive to investors worried that the Fed move would end up debasing the world’s reserve currency.

Despite the financial meltdown at home, the dollar has been mostly regarded as “safe haven” by investors averting risks amid a global economic slump.

Before Obama spoke, the dollar ended higher Tuesday against key currencies.

The euro fell to 1,3469 dollars in late New York trading from 1,3617 a day earlier while the greenback rose to 97.88 yen from 97.13.

US Federal Reserve chief Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Tuesday also defended the dollar at a congressional hearing.

At the hearing, a lawmaker asked the two financial chiefs: “Would you categorically renounce the United States moving away from the dollar and going to a global currency as suggested by China?”

Geithner immediately responded, “I would.”

“And the chair?” the lawmaker asked, turning to Fed chairman Bernanke.

“I would also,” Bernanke said.

The idea of a global currency determined by multilateral organizations is not new, said John Lipsky, the IMF’s first deputy managing director.

“But it’s a serious proposal,” he said in Washington.

And he hastened to add, “I don’t think even the proponents think it as a short-term issue but as a longer-term issue that merits serious study and consideration.”

EU Economic and Monetary Affairs Commissioner Joaquin Almunia said the dollar would remain unchallenged as the top reserve currency even as emerging economies such as China play a more critical role in the global economy.

He said, “I don’t expect major structural changes in the role that the dollar plays today as a reserve currency.”

The debate over the dollar’s role came ahead of the G20 summit of developing and industrialized nations on April 2 in London, where world leaders and international organizations, including the IMF, are to discuss reforming the financial system.

Russia has also proposed the summit discuss creating a supranational reserve currency. The IMF created the SDR as an international reserve asset in 1969, but it is only used by governments and international institutions.

They’ve Seen the Future and Dislike the Present

Published: March 16, 2009

Two hours into Z-Day, the educational forum associated with the online movie “Zeitgeist,” Peter Joseph, the film’s director and the evening’s M.C., stepped out from behind his lectern and walked forward earnestly on the stage.

James Estrin/The New York Times

Peter Joseph, the director of two online “Zeitgeist” movies, was applauded after criticizing the global system of monetary finance.

James Estrin/The New York Times

Before the forum started, Jacque Fresco, 93, the 

futurist, talked with young admirers in the audience about his Venus Project.

In his goatee and mustache and tieless in a brown suit, Mr. Joseph had been lecturing for nearly 90 minutes on the unsustainable nature of the money-based economy — on cyclical consumption, planned obsolescence, corporate malfeasance and piles of poisonous waste. “It’s time that we wake up,” he intoned, speaking solemnly through a wireless clip-on mike. “The doomsday scenario, the big contraction, might be happening right now. The system of monetary exchange is — in the face of advancing technology — completely obsolete.”

This drew wild applause from the sold-out crowd, a patchwork of perhaps 900 people who paid $10 a head on Sunday night to sit in a packed auditorium at the Borough of Manhattan Community College on Chambers Street near the West Side Highway. Z-Day events were taking place from New England to New Zealand, but this was the big one: the marquee happening with the marquee names.

There, in the crowd, was Jacque Fresco, an industrial designer and the engineering guru of what people unironically called “the movement.” Mr. Fresco, an elfin 93-year-old, sat beside his partner, Roxanne Meadows, smiling self-effacingly.

Mr. Joseph, back on stage, waited patiently as some of the crowd, still cheering, refused to leave their feet.

If the election of Barack Obama was supposed to denote the gradual demise of churlish, corporate governance and usher in a new, sustainable era of visionary change, there was little sign of it at the second annual meeting of the Worldwide Zeitgeist Movement, which, its organizers said, held 450 sister events in 70 countries around the globe.

“The mission of the movement is the application of the scientific method for social change,” Mr. Joseph announced by way of introduction. The evening, which began at 7 with a two-hour critique of monetary economics, became by midnight a utopian presentation of a money-free and computer-driven vision of the future, a wholesale reimagination of civilization, as if Karl Marx and Carl Sagan had hired John Lennon from his “Imagine” days to do no less than redesign the underlying structures of planetary life.

In other words, a not entirely inappropriate response to the zeitgeist itself, which one young man, a philosophy student in a roomy purple blazer, described before the show began as “the world as we know it coming to an end.” As the evening labored on with a Power Point presentation, a panel talk with Mr. Fresco and a spirited question and answer session, some basic themes emerged: modern economics is a fraud; global debt will crush the planet; society itself is dying from the profit motive; and people ought to wise up to the fact that more than legislation — or presidential administrations — needs to change.

Though they were never actually shown — as most in attendance had seen them several times — Mr. Joseph’s two films, “Zeitgeist, the Movie” (released in 2007) and “Zeitgeist: Addendum” (released last fall), were the subtext of the evening: online documentaries that have been watched, he says, by 50 million people around the world.

The former may be most famous for alleging that the attacks of Sept. 11 were an “inside job” perpetrated by a power-hungry government on its witless population, a point of view that Mr. Joseph said he has recently “moved away from.” Indeed, the second film, the focus of the event, was all but empty of such conspiratorial notions, directing its rhetoric and high production values toward posing a replacement for the evils of the banking system and a perilous economy of scarcity and debt.

That’s where Mr. Fresco came in, an author, lecturer and former aircraft engineer at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio who has spent the last six decades working on the Venus Project, a futuristic society where (adjust your seatbelts, now) machines would control government and industry and safeguard the planet’s fragile resources by means of an artificially intelligent “earthwide autonomic sensor system” — a super-brain of sorts connected to, yes, all human knowledge.

If this sounds vaguely like a disaster scenario out of “2001: A Space Odyssey,” Mr. Fresco did not seem worried in the least. Machines are unemotional and unaggressive, unlike human beings, he told the crowd during the question-and-answer phase. “If you took your laptop and smashed it in front of 50 other laptops, trust me, none of them would care.”

The audience — white, black, young, old, baseball caps and business suits alike — received such words like a tonic, and the questions kept coming: What would family life be like in the future? What would happen if the automated system decided that a person had to die? Mr. Fresco and Ms. Meadows are planning the production of a major feature film to bring the Venus Project to a wider, global audience. Before the night began, Mr. Fresco, a small man with a V-neck sweater and a hearing aid, sat signing books and answering questions from a dozen or so college students gathered like acolytes at his feet.

As the evening came to a close, someone finally asked: So what would it take to actually put such a program into action? A grassroots movement, Mr. Joseph said.

“We already have a quarter-million members,” he insisted from the stage. “At the rate things are going, this will be at Madison Square Garden next year.”

With the economic news seemingly becoming worse by the day, there has been much talk about the possibility of deflation – a prolonged period of falling general prices.


By George Buckley from
Last Updated: 11:35AM GMT 17 Mar 2009

But why would this be so bad? After all, surely deflation is good for households if it means that the cost of the goods and services is becoming cheaper?

There are a few reasons it’s not that simple. First, prices tend to be influenced by the state of the economy. If demand is greater than the supply of goods and services then prices rise. If demand is weaker –as is the case at the moment – then prices can drop. So falling prices tell us something about the fragile shape of the economy. 

Deflation, therefore, doesn’t just mean lower prices – it also means higher unemployment and lower wages. It will become much more difficult for those people who’ve lost their job or had to take a pay cut to continue repaying their debt.

Some might be forced to sell their house to pay off the mortgage – but the more people who do this, the more house prices may fall (causing negative equity). And if house prices fall that can be a blow to confidence leading to a weaker economy which in turn might perpetuate deflation. It is easy to see how a vicious cycle can develop.

Consider the situation in which we have deflation, and more importantly we think it is going to continue. There is, then, little incentive to spend money today – we may as well wait until tomorrow when prices will be lower. And tomorrow we might think the same again, deferring our purchase indefinitely.

This is what happened in Japan in the 1990s – deflation came, and shoppers disappeared. Economic growth turned to economic contraction, and we witnessed what became known as Japan’s “lost decade”. Following a brief interlude where growth returned, a second lost decade seems to be in the making.

Even worse was the Great Depression. In the 1930s share prices tumbled leading to an economic slump of epic proportions – and, of course, deflation and falling wages. The crash that led to that depression was caused by investors buying shares with borrowed money, pushing their prices up to ever unsustainable levels. This time round it was excesses in the housing market and the financial sector.

Governments are now trying to spend their way out of recession, attempting to fill in the gap left by households and firms. The Bank of England is helping too by bringing interest rates down to exceptionally low levels – making it less desirable to save and thereby encouraging spending.

It is still very uncertain as to how all of this stimulus will affect the economy. The pressing need is to avert a period of deflation, but the risk is that too much policy easing could cause exactly the opposite

George Buckley is chief UK economist at Deutsche Bank

The Principle of Mínzú

(Min²-tsu², 民族主義 “The People’s Relation/Connection” or “Government of the People”): Nationalism. By this, Sun meant freedom from imperialist domination. To achieve this he believed that China must develop a “civic-nationalism”, Zhonghua Minzu, as opposed to an “ethnic-nationalism”, so as to unite all of the different ethnicities of China, mainly composed by the five major groups of Han, Mongols, Tibetans, Manchus, and the Muslims, which together are symbolized by the Five Color Flag of the First Republic (1911-1928). This sense of nationalism is different from the idea of “ethnocentrism,” which equates to the same meaning of nationalism in Chinese language.

The Principle of Mínquán

(Min²-ch’üan², 民權主義 “The People’s Power” or “Government by the People”): Democracy. To Sun, it represented a Western constitutional government. First, he divided political life of his ideal for China into two sets of ‘powers’:

The power of politics

(政權; zhèngquán): These are the powers of the people to express their political wishes, similar to those vested in the citizenry or the parliaments in other countries, and is represented by the National Assembly. There are four of these powers: election (選舉), recall (罷免), initiative (創制), and referendum (複決). These may be equated to “civil rights“.

The power of governance

(治權; zhìquán): these are the powers of administration. Here he expanded the European-American constitutional theory of a three-branch government and a system of checks and balances by incorporating traditional Chinese administrative tradition to create a government of five branches (each of which is called a yuàn or ‘court’). The Legislative Yuan, the Executive Yuan, and the Judicial Yuan came from Montesquieuan thought; the Control Yuan and the Examination Yuan came from Chinese tradition. (Note that the Legislative Yuan was first intended as a branch of governance, not strictly equivalent to a national parliament.)

The Principle of Mínshēng

(Min²-sheng¹, 民生主義 “The People’s Welfare/Livelihood” or “Government for the People”): this is sometimes translated as socialism, although the government of Chiang Kai-shek shied away from translating it as such. The concept may be understood associal welfare or as populist (“for the people”, “to pleasure the people”) governmental measures. Sun understood it as an industrial economy and equality of land holdings for the Chinese peasant farmers. Here he was influenced by the American thinker Henry George (see Georgism); the land value tax in Taiwan is a legacy thereof. He divided livelihood into four areas: food, clothing, housing, and transportation; and planned out how an ideal (Chinese) government can take care of these for its people.

Self-organization is a process of attraction and repulsion in which the internal organization of a system, normally an open system, increases in complexity without being guided or managed by an outside source. Self-organizing systems typically (though not always) display emergent properties.




The most robust and unambiguous examples of self-organizing systems are from physics. Self-organization is also relevant in chemistry, where it has often been taken as being synonymous with self-assembly. The concept of self-organization is central to the description of biological systems, from the subcellular to the ecosystem level. There are also cited examples of “self-organizing” behaviour found in the literature of many other disciplines, both in the natural sciences and the social sciences such aseconomics or anthropology. Self-organization has also been observed in mathematical systems such as cellular automata.

Sometimes the notion of self-organization is conflated with that of the related concept of emergence. Properly defined, however, there may be instances of self-organization without emergence and emergence without self-organization, and it is clear from the literature that the phenomena are not the same. The link between emergence and self-organization remains an active research question.

Self-organization usually relies on four basic ingredients:

  1. Positive feedback
  2. Negative feedback
  3. Balance of exploitation and exploration
  4. Multiple interactions

History of the idea

The idea that the dynamics of a system can tend by themselves to increase the inherent order of a system has a long history. One of the earliest statements of this idea was by the philosopher Descartes, in the fifth part of his Discourse on Method, where he presents it hypothetically.[citation needed] Descartes further elaborated on the idea at great length in his unpublished work The World.

The ancient atomists (among others) believed that a designing intelligence was unnecessary, arguing that given enough time and space and matter, organization was ultimately inevitable, although there would be no preferred tendency for this to happen. What Descartes introduced was the idea that the ordinary laws of nature tend to produce organization[citation needed] (For related history, see Aram Vartanian, Diderot and Descartes).

Beginning with the 18th century naturalists a movement arose that sought to understand the “universal laws of form” in order to explain the observed forms of living organisms. Because of its association with Lamarckism, their ideas fell into disrepute until the early 20th century, when pioneers such as D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson revived them. The modern understanding is that there are indeed universal laws (arising from fundamental physics and chemistry) that govern growth and form in biological systems.

Originally, the term “self-organizing” was used by Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Judgment, where he argued that teleology is a meaningful concept only if there exists such an entity whose parts or “organs” are simultaneously ends and means. Such a system of organs must be able to behave as if it has a mind of its own, that is, it is capable of governing itself.

In such a natural product as this every part is thought as owing its presence to the agency of all the remaining parts, and also as existing for the sake of the others and of the whole, that is as an instrument, or organ… The part must be an organ producing the other parts—each, consequently, reciprocally producing the others… Only under these conditions and upon these terms can such a product be an organized and self-organized being, and, as such, be called a physical end.

The term “self-organizing” was introduced to contemporary science in 1947 by the psychiatrist and engineer W. Ross Ashby. It was taken up by the cyberneticians Heinz von FoersterGordon PaskStafford Beer and Norbert Wiener himself in the second edition of his “Cybernetics: or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine” (MIT Press 1961).

Self-organization as a word and concept was used by those associated with general systems theory in the 1960s, but did not become commonplace in the scientific literature until its adoption by physicists and researchers in the field of complex systems in the 1970s and 1980s.[1] After 1977’s Ilya Prigogine Nobel Prize, the thermodynamic concept of self-organization received some attention of the public, and scientific researchers start to migrate from the cibernetic view to the thermodynamic view.


The following list summarizes and classifies the instances of self-organization found in different disciplines. As the list grows, it becomes increasingly difficult to determine whether these phenomena are all fundamentally the same process, or the same label applied to several different processes. Self-organization, despite its intuitive simplicity as a concept, has proven notoriously difficult to define and pin down formally or mathematically, and it is entirely possible that any precise definition might not include all the phenomena to which the label has been applied.

It should also be noted that, the farther a phenomenon is removed from physics, the more controversial the idea of self-organization as understood by physicists becomes. Also, even when self-organization is clearly present, attempts at explaining it through physics or statistics are usually criticized as reductionistic.

Similarly, when ideas about self-organization originate in, say, biology or social science, the farther one tries to take the concept into chemistry, physics or mathematics, the more resistance is encountered, usually on the grounds that it implies direction in fundamental physical processes. However the tendency of hot bodies to get cold (see Thermodynamics) and by Le Chatelier’s Principle– the statistical mechanics extension of Newton’s Third Law– to oppose this tendency should be noted.

Self-organization in physics

There are several broad classes of physical processes that can be described as self-organization. Such examples from physics include:

  • self-organizing dynamical systems: complex systems made up of small, simple units connected to each other usually exhibit self-organization
  • In spin foam system and loop quantum gravity that was proposed by Lee Smolin. The main idea is that the evolution of space in time should be robust in general. Any fine-tuning of cosmological parameters weaken the independency of the fundamental theory. Philosophically, it can be assumed that in the early time, there has not been any agent to tune the cosmological parameters. Smolin and his colleagues in a series of works show that, based on the loop quantization of spacetime, in the very early time, a simple evolutionary model (similar to the sand pile model) behaves as a power law distribution on both the size and area of avalanche.
    • Although, this model, which is restricted only on the frozen spin networks, exhibits a non-stationary expansion of the universe. However, it is the first serious attempt toward the final ambitious goal of determining the cosmic expansion and inflation based on a self-organized criticality theory in which the parameters are not tuned, but instead are determined from within the complex system.[2]

Self-organization vs. entropy

Statistical mechanics informs us that large scale phenomena can be viewed as a large system of small interacting particles, whose processes are assumed consistent with well established mechanical laws such as entropy, i.e., equilibrium thermodynamics. However, “… following the macroscopic point of view the same physical media can be thought of as continua whose properties of evolution are given by phenomenological laws between directly measurable quantities on our scale, such as, for example, the pressure, the temperature, or the concentrations of the different components of the media. The macroscopic perspective is of interest because of its greater simplicity of formalism and because it is often the only view practicable.” Against this background, Glansdorff and Ilya Prigogine introduced a deeper view at the microscopic level, where “… the principles of thermodynamics explicitly make apparent the concept of irreversibility and along with it the concept of dissipation and temporal orientation which were ignored by classical (or quantum) dynamics, where the time appears as a simple parameter and the trajectories are entirely reversible.”[3]

As a result, processes considered part of thermodynamically open systems, such as biological processes that are constantly receiving, transforming and dissipating chemical energy (and even the earth itself which is constantly receiving and dissipating solar energy), can and do exhibit properties of self organization far from thermodynamic equilibrium.

LASER (acronym for “light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation”) can also be characterized as a self organized system to the extent that normal states of thermal equilibrium characterized by electromagnetic energy absorption are stimulated out of equilibrium in a reverse of the absorption process. “If the matter can be forced out of thermal equilibrium to a sufficient degree, so that the upper state has a higher population than the lower state (population inversion), then more stimulated emission than absorption occurs, leading to coherent growth (amplification or gain) of the electromagnetic wave at the transition frequency.”[4]


Self-organization in human society

The self-organizing behaviour of social animals and the self-organization of simple mathematical structures both suggest that self-organization should be expected in human society. Tell-tale signs of self-organization are usually statistical properties shared with self-organizing physical systems (see Zipf’s lawpower lawPareto principle). Examples such as Critical Massherd behaviourgroupthink and others, abound in sociologyeconomicsbehavioral finance and anthropology.[19]

In social theory the concept of self-referentiality has been introduced as a sociological application of self-organization theory by Niklas Luhmann (1984). For Luhmann the elements of a social system are self-producing communications, i.e. a communication produces further communications and hence a social system can reproduce itself as long as there is dynamic communication. For Luhmann human beings are sensors in the environment of the system. Luhmann put forward a functional theory of society.[citation needed]

Self-organization in human and computer networks can give rise to a decentralized, distributed, self-healing system, protecting the security of the actors in the network by limiting the scope of knowledge of the entire system held by each individual actor. TheUnderground Railroad is a good example of this sort of network.[original research?] The networks that arise from drug trafficking exhibit similar self-organizing properties.[original research?] Parallel examples exist in the world of privacy-preserving computer networks such as Tor.[original research?] In each case, the network as a whole exhibits distinctive synergistic behavior through the combination of the behaviors of individual actors in the network. Usually the growth of such networks is fueled by an ideology or sociological force that is adhered to or shared by all participants in the network.[original research?][citation needed]

In economics

In economics, a market economy is sometimes said to be self-organizing. Friedrich Hayek coined the term catallaxy to describe a “self-organizing system of voluntary co-operation,” in regard to capitalism. Most modern economists hold that imposing central planning usually makes the self-organized economic system less efficient. By contrast, some socialist economists consider that market failures are so significant that self-organization produces bad results and that the state should direct production and pricing. Many economists adopt an intermediate position and recommend a mixture of market economy and command economy characteristics (sometimes called a mixed economy). When applied to economics, the concept of self-organization can quickly become ideologically-imbued (as explained in chapter 5 of A. Marshall, The Unity of Nature, Imperial College Press, 2002).

In collective intelligence

Non-thermodynamic concepts of entropy and self-organization have been explored by many theorists. Cliff Joslyn and colleagues and their so-called “global brain” projects. Marvin Minsky‘s “Society of Mind” and the no-central editor in charge policy of the open sourced internet encyclopedia, called Wikipedia, are examples of applications of these principles – see collective intelligence.

Donella Meadows, who codified twelve leverage points that a self-organizing system could exploit to organize itself, was one of a school of theorists who saw human creativity as part of a general process of adapting human lifeways to the planet and taking humans out of conflict with natural processes. See Gaia philosophydeep ecologyecology movement and Green movement for similar self-organizing ideals. (The connections between self-organisation and Gaia theory and the environmental movement are explored in A. Marshall, 2002, The Unity of Nature, Imperial College Press: London).

Spontaneous order is the spontaneous emergence of order out of seeming chaos; the emergence of various kinds of social order from a combination of self-interested individuals who are not intentionally trying to create order.

The evolution of life on Earth, human language, and a free market economy have all been proposed as examples of systems which evolved through spontaneous order. Atheists and naturalists often point to the inherent “watch-like” precision of uncultivatedecosystems and to the universe itself as ultimate examples of this phenomenon.

Spontaneous order is also used as a synonym for any emergent behavior of which self-interested spontaneous order is just an instance.



History of the theory

According to Murray RothbardZhuangzi (369-c. 286 B.c.) was the first to work out the idea of spontaneous order, before Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Friedrich Hayek. The Taoist Zhuangzi said, “Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone.” .[1] Proudhon said, “The notion of anarchy in politics is just as rational and positive as any other. It means that once industrial functions have taken over from political functions, then business transactions alone produce the social order.”[2] Proudhon’s position was that freedom is prerequisite for spontaneous order to take place, rather than liberty being the result of spontaneous order. Hence his statement, liberty “is not the daughter but the mother of order.”[3]

The thinkers of the Scottish Enlightenment were the first to seriously develop and inquire into the idea of the market as a ‘spontaneous order’ (the “result of human action, but not the execution of any human design”, as Adam Ferguson put it first [1]).

The Austrian School of Economics, lead by Carl MengerLudwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, would later refine the concept and use it as a centerpiece in its social and economic thought.

Most Austrian School thinkers and other libertarian figures such as Milton Friedman concurred with Proudhon’s position mentioned above, although they supported the existence of a minimal state to maintain the liberty requisite for spontaneous order to take place.[citation needed]



Many economic classical liberals, such as Hayek, have argued that market economies are creative of a spontaneous order – “a more efficient allocation of societal resources than any design could achieve.”[4] They claim this spontaneous order is superior to any order human mind can design due to the specifics of the information required.[citation needed] Centralized statistical data cannot convey this information because the statistics are created by abstracting away from the particulars of the situation.[5] In a market economy, price is the aggregation of information acquired when people are free to use their individual knowledge. Price then allows everyone dealing in a commodity or its substitutes to make decisions based on more information than they could personally acquire, information not statistically conveyable to a centralized authority. Interference from a central authority which affects price will have consequences they could not foresee because they do not know all of the particulars involved. This is illustrated in the concept of the invisible hand proposed by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations. Smith, however, rejected that Capitalist society was free in any form of all, stating that the workers were constantly enslaved and forced into labor regularly by their managers (Chapter 8 of Vol. 1 of The Wealth of Nations). Thus in this view by acting on information with greater detail and accuracy than possible for any centralized authority, a more efficient economy is created to the benefit of a whole society.

Game studies

The concept of spontaneous order is closely related with modern game studies. As early as in the 1940s, historian Johan Huizinga wrote that “in myth and ritual the great instinctive forces of civilized life have their origin: law and order, commerce and profit, craft and art, poetry, wisdom and science. All are rooted in the primeval soil of play”. Following on this in his book The Fatal Conceit, Hayek notably wrote that “A game is indeed a clear instance of a process wherein obedience to common rules by elements pursuing different and even conflicting purposes results in overall order”.


Anarchists argue that the state is in fact an artificial creation of the ruling elite, and that true spontaneous order would arise if it was eliminated. In the anarchist view, such spontaneous order would involve the voluntary cooperation of individuals. According to the Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, “the work of many symbolic interactionists is largely compatible with the anarchist vision, since it harbours a view of society as spontaneous order.” [6]


The concept of spontaneous order can also be seen in the works of the Russian slavophile movements and in specific the works of Fyodor Dostoyevsky. The concept of an organic social manifestation as a concept in Russia expressed under the idea ofsobornost. Sobornost was also used by Leo Tolstoy as an underpinning to the concept of Christian Anarchy. Vladimir Lenin also later exploited the concept of sobornost as a foundation for his own reforms. The concept was used to describe the uniting force behind the peasant or serf Obshchina in pre Soviet Russia.[7]


G4 nations

Publicado: janeiro 18, 2009 por Yogi em Culture, International, Politics, Tudo
Tags:, , ,

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The G4 member states were:


G4 countries.
The G4 (Group of Four) is an alliance among Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan for the purpose of supporting each other’s bid for permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council. Unlike the G8 (formerly known as G7), where the common denominator is the economy and long term political motives, the G4’s primary aim is the permanent member seats on the UN Security Council.

The UN currently has five permanent members with veto powers in the Security Council: The People’s Republic of China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The G4 nations are regularly elected to two-year terms on the Security Council by their respective groups: in the 24-year period from 1987 to 2010, and India was elected for six terms, Japan for five terms, Brazil for four terms and Germany for three terms.

While almost all nations have agreed in principle that the UN needs a revamping which includes expansion, few countries are willing to talk about the exact time frame for such a reorganization. Also there has been discontent among the present permanent members regarding the inclusion of controversial nations or countries not supported by them. For instance, Japan’s bid is heavily opposed by the People’s Republic of China. At the same time Japan finds strong support from the USA [1] and the UK. [2]

Countries that strongly oppose the G4 countries’ bids have formed the Uniting for Consensus movement, or the Coffee Club, now compromising over 40 nations. The leaders of this group are Italy, South Korea, Mexico, Argentina and Pakistan.[3] In East Asia, both China and South Korea heavily oppose Japan’s bid. In Europe, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands all oppose a seat for Germany. In Latin America, Argentina and Mexico are opposing a seat for Brazil. In South Asia, Pakistan is opposing India’s bid. Also important are historical political animosities toward certain G4 nations (see Japanese war crimes, Comfort women for Japan, and The Holocaust for Germany).

The G4 suggested that two African nations be included in the enlarged UNSC. In several conferences during the summer of 2005, the African Union was unable to agree on two nominees: Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa all lay claim to a permanent African UNSC seat. [4][5]

A UN General Assembly in September 2005 marked the 60th anniversary of the UN and the members were to decide on a number of necessary reforms—including the enlarged SC. However the unwillingness to find a negotiable position stopped even the most urgent reforms; the September 2005 General Assembly was a setback for the UN.

The G4 retain their goal of permanent UNSC membership for all four nations (plus two African nations). However, Japan announced in January 2006 that it would not support putting the G4 resolution back on the table and was working on a resolution of its own.[6]