Pedro Santa Clara retweeted
I have a column today in The Washington Post: “Why $11 a day represents extraordinary prosperity.”
washingtonpost.com/opinions/…
I summarize evidence of incredible growth in human prosperity over the last 30 years and how that prosperity has come, in fact, with slightly lower inequality at the world level and, since 2012, falling per capita carbon emissions. Hundreds of millions of families no longer live at the edge of subsistence.
The point about carbon emissions is interesting: population growth has driven all the increase in total emissions since 2012. Since world population will peak around 2055, the path to decarbonization will be easier than often assumed.
This is also why relying on what I think are the United Nations’ seriously flawed population projections is so damaging to good policy. If you feed the wrong population forecast into integrated assessment models of climate change, you will get the wrong policy implications. This is not about getting one Excel file wrong; this is about getting first-order decisions wrong.
More pointedly, the experience of the last two centuries teaches us a clear lesson: good economic policy, based on the rule of law, markets, property rights, limited government, sound fiscal and monetary policy, international economic cooperation, and attention to families, education, health, and housing, can serve the common good: broad prosperity, lower inequality, technological dynamism, and stewardship of the earth. If we also find a way to fix the fertility crisis so couples can have the children they hope for, the possibilities for what we can achieve over the next 100 years are unbounded.
Pedro Santa Clara retweeted
How can we reconcile democracy with liberalism?
Grow up. Become ethical adults, not 3-year-olds.
Stop expecting everything from the state.
Stop appealing to Mommy for anything but justice as she sees it. Not Marie’s doll.
My latest column for @folha
Pedro Santa Clara retweeted
No 1º ano em que funcionou a avaliação dos profs, a assiduidade contava como critério. Não houve faltas no país durante todo o ano e eu deixei de substituir o prof de Ed Musical em todas as aulas. Teria outras coisas para fazer.
Só durou 1 ano. Os sindicatos não permitiram mais😬
Pedro Santa Clara retweeted
Será que desta vez se reconhece que a política educativa seguida entre c. 2002 e 2025, com destaque para 2011-15, conduzia ao progresso e que a viragem iniciada em 2016 nos levou ao desastre?
E será que se tomam as medidas necessárias?
Pedro Santa Clara retweeted
PISA 2025 est enfin sorti.
La France 🇫🇷 touche le fond, mais creuse encore.
Beaucoup a déjà été dit, tout le monde y voit une raison différente, certaines pertinentes, d'autres moins.
Mais à mon sens il y a un chiffre qui en dit plus que les autres.
Thread, 0/19
Pedro Santa Clara retweeted
Message aux féministes de gauche qui portent le voile par solidarité
Je vois depuis quelques jours des féministes françaises, des inconnues, influenceuses de gauche, se voiler sur les réseaux sociaux par « solidarité » avec les femmes voilées contre la proposition du RN.
Mais je me pose une question, où étiez-vous quand j’ai retiré mon voile ? Où était votre solidarité quand j’ai reçu des menaces de mort car j’avais décidé de montrer mes cheveux et de reprendre ma liberté ?
Depuis que j’ai osé retirer publiquement mon voile et raconter mon parcours, je reçois régulièrement des insultes, des menaces de mort, des messages haineux. J’ai été traitée de tous les noms, désignée comme une traîtresse, une femme à salir, parce que j’ai fait un choix, disposer de mon corps et décider moi-même de ce que je porte sur ma tête ou pas, ces menaces de mort, je ne les ai pas imaginées. Je les ai reçues. Certaines personnes considèrent encore aujourd’hui que parce que j’ai retiré mon voile, je parle publiquement de ce que j’ai vécu et parce que je défends le droit des femmes à s’en libérer, je mérite d’être insultée, menacée et réduite au silence.
Alors oui, quand je vois aujourd’hui toutes ces photos et videos et démonstrations de solidarité, je me demande où était cette mobilisation pour nous ?
Où est votre solidarité avec les femmes iraniennes qui enlèvent leur voile au péril de leur vie ?
Où êtes-vous pour les femmes afghanes auxquelles les talibans retirent, les uns après les autres, leurs droits et leurs libertés ?
Où êtes-vous pour nos sœurs des cités qui subissent des pressions pour se voiler, pour celles que l’on insulte, que l’on harcèle ou que l’on menace parce qu’elles veulent vivre librement ?
Où étiez-vous pour les victimes de viols collectifs, de tournantes qui ont brisé la vie de jeunes filles dans certains quartiers ? Pourquoi ne les défendez-vous pas avec la même énergie?
Parce que derrière tout cela, il existe une vision de la femme que je connais malheureusement trop bien, soit le voile, soit le déshonneur et parfois, dans sa forme la plus abjecte, soit le voile, soit le viol !
Comme si une femme qui ne se couvre pas devenait responsable du regard pervers sur elles des hommes, comme si son corps devenait disponible, comme si elle ne méritait plus le respect.
Dans cette logique, la femme est toujours ramenée au même statut, un objet. Un corps qu’il faudrait cacher pour qu’il soit respectable, ou un corps que certains s’autoriseraient à salir ou à violer parce qu’il ne l’est pas car trop découvert.
C’est précisément cette vision que le féminisme devrait combattre de toutes ses forces. Mais là, étrangement, je ne vois pas les mêmes vidéos. Je ne vois pas les mêmes gestes de solidarité. Je ne vous vois plus Mesdames les féministes.
Par contre, pour vous mettre en scène voilées afin de vous opposer au Rassemblement national, là, vous êtes nombreuses. Combattre le RN semble parfois provoquer davantage de mobilisation que combattre ceux qui oppriment réellement des femmes au nom de leur sexe.
Je ne suis pas favorable aux amendes contre les femmes voilées. Je sais trop bien ce que signifie être enfermée dans une idéologie pour croire qu’on libère une femme en la punissant.
Mais votre solidarité me dérange lorsqu’elle ne va que dans un seul sens. Pourquoi vous couvrir les cheveux pour défendre celles qui veulent porter le voile, mais ne jamais les découvrir en solidarité avec celles qui se battent pour pouvoir l’enlever ?
Moi, j’ai porté le voile. Je l’ai retiré, je connais le prix que certaines femmes paient pour ce geste.
Je vous demande par solidarité pour les femmes menacées torturées, assassinées de France, d’Iran, d’Afghanistan et du monde entier de retirer ce voile de la honte qui représente la prison de l’obscurantisme.Faites le même geste moi ! Si vous êtes des vrais féministe prouvez le !
La liberté, ce n’est pas seulement défendre le droit de mettre un voile. C’est aussi le droit de l’enlever.
Henda Ayari
Pedro Santa Clara retweeted
Close the skies. Again I ask, what other than cowardice is preventing Europe from defending Ukraine against this terrorist onslaught?
Pedro Santa Clara retweeted
You must be kidding. AI might have big effects. It could have risks. So “policymakers,” must "act now,” before they have any idea what they’re doing, to "build the incentives, guardrails, and institutions needed to steer AI in a direction that complements humans and benefits society?” Boy I’m glad no self-appointed “policy maker” decided to “steer” the development of the steam engine. The ones who “steered” nuclear power destroyed it. Preemptive dirigisme is killing tech in Europe. If said “policy makers” could do something about the dumpster fires of US social programs, building restrictions, appalling costs of public infrastructure, broken tax code, failing schools, maybe I’d think about "calling" to unleash them on some vague AI crusade. (Previous essay on this here grumpy-economist.com/p/ai-so…)
Here's our statement on AI and the economy.
We Must Act Now
A Statement on AI’s Transformation of the Economy
1. AI may become radically more powerful over the next 10 years.
2. This could drive an unprecedented transformation of our economy, larger than the Industrial Revolution, but unfolding over a vastly shorter time frame. It could bring risks, including large-scale job displacement, as well as opportunities such as major gains in living standards.
3. Economists, policymakers and technology leaders must act now to understand the economics of transformative AI and to build the incentives, guardrails, and institutions needed to steer AI in a direction that complements humans and benefits society.
Pedro Santa Clara retweeted
Os baixos salários em Portugal resultam da estagnação da produtividade, não de má vontade patronal. Numa economia de baixo valor que compete por preço, com elevada fiscalidade sobre o trabalho e pressões migratórias, reformas estruturais são essenciais para crescer a riqueza antes de redistribuir. revistaminerva.pt/a-anatomia…
Europe never recovered from 2008.
In 2008 the EU economy was larger than America’s. Today the US produces nearly 50% more than the entire European Union combined with per capita GDP almost double Europe’s average.
America chose innovation, energy abundance, and growth.
Europe chose regulation, green self-sabotage, and welfare bloat.
The gap is now a canyon, and it’s still widening.
So don’t Europize America.
Pedro Santa Clara retweeted
Durante el Mundial de 1934, realizado en Italia, Benito Mussolini intervino personalmente en la elección de los árbitros que dirigían los partidos de la selección italiana. Según las crónicas de la época, el dictador cenaba formalmente con ellos la noche anterior a los encuentros para dejar en claro qué se esperaba de su actuación.
En el partido de cuartos de final contra España, el árbitro belga Louis Baert permitió un juego salvaje por parte de los italianos, especialmente contra las principales figuras españolas. El arquero Ricardo Zamora terminó con las costillas rotas. En el desempate posterior, el árbitro René Mercet anuló dos goles legítimos a España; su actuación fue tan cuestionada que la propia Federación Suiza terminó suspendiéndolo de por vida.
En la semifinal contra Austria, el árbitro Ivan Eklind convalidó un gol italiano en una jugada en la que varios futbolistas empujaron al arquero austríaco hacia adentro de la red. Minutos después, el mismo árbitro interceptó con la cabeza un pase que podía derivar en un contraataque claro de Austria. Tras ese partido, Mussolini designó nuevamente a Eklind para dirigir la final contra Checoslovaquia.
La jugada más polémica de la final ocurrió cuando Luis Monti derribó al delantero checo Oldřich Nejedlý dentro del área italiana. La falta parecía un penal evidente, pero Eklind la ignoró y dejó seguir el juego. Antes del silbato inicial, el árbitro se ubicó frente al palco presidencial y realizó el saludo fascista dirigido a Benito Mussolini.
Italia ganó el partido por 4 a 2.
No sé por qué se me vino a la memoria esta serie de datos sobre un tema que no es el mío, como es el caso de los deportes.
Pedro Santa Clara retweeted
“Fellow Citizens, I am not wanting in respect for the fathers of this republic. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were brave men. They were great men too — great enough to give fame to a great age. It does not often happen to a nation to raise, at one time, such a number of truly great men. The point from which I am compelled to view them is not, certainly, the most favorable; and yet I cannot contemplate their great deeds with less than admiration. They were statesmen, patriots and heroes, and for the good they did, and the principles they contended for, I will unite with you to honor their memory.
“They loved their country better than their own private interests; and, though this is not the highest form of human excellence, all will concede that it is a rare virtue, and that when it is exhibited, it ought to command respect. He who will, intelligently, lay down his life for his country, is a man whom it is not in human nature to despise. Your fathers staked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, on the cause of their country. In their admiration of liberty, they lost sight of all other interests.
“They were peace men; but they preferred revolution to peaceful submission to bondage. They were quiet men; but they did not shrink from agitating against oppression. They showed forbearance; but that they knew its limits. They believed in order; but not in the order of tyranny. With them, nothing was “settled” that was not right. With them, justice, liberty and humanity were “final;” not slavery and oppression. You may well cherish the memory of such men. They were great in their day and generation. Their solid manhood stands out the more as we contrast it with these degenerate times.
“How circumspect, exact and proportionate were all their movements! How unlike the politicians of an hour! Their statesmanship looked beyond the passing moment, and stretched away in strength into the distant future. They seized upon eternal principles, and set a glorious example in their defense. Mark them!
“Fully appreciating the hardship to be encountered, firmly believing in the right of their cause, honorably inviting the scrutiny of an on-looking world, reverently appealing to heaven to attest their sincerity, soundly comprehending the solemn responsibility they were about to assume, wisely measuring the terrible odds against them, your fathers, the fathers of this republic, did, most deliberately, under the inspiration of a glorious patriotism, and with a sublime faith in the great principles of justice and freedom, lay deep the corner-stone of the national superstructure, which has risen and still rises in grandeur around you.
“Of this fundamental work, this day is the anniversary. Our eyes are met with demonstrations of joyous enthusiasm. Banners and pennants wave exultingly on the breeze. The din of business, too, is hushed. Even Mammon seems to have quitted his grasp on this day. The ear-piercing fife and the stirring drum unite their accents with the ascending peal of a thousand church bells. Prayers are made, hymns are sung, and sermons are preached in honor of this day; while the quick martial tramp of a great and multitudinous nation, echoed back by all the hills, valleys and mountains of a vast continent, bespeak the occasion one of thrilling and universal interest — a nation’s jubilee.”
- Frederick Douglass
Pedro Santa Clara retweeted
Texto sensato e bem fundamentado de Helena Garrido sobre a ‘Grande Irresponsabilidade’ das políticas de imigração adoptadas nos governos de António Costa - e sobre o mais que provável grande embuste dos seus ganhos económicos. observador.pt/opiniao/o-temp…
Pedro Santa Clara retweeted
Esta semana, no Sapo, sobre o terrível planeamento urbano em Portugal e a forma como isso prejudica o crescimento do país:
"Qualquer área próxima de uma estação de comboio ou metro que a coloque a menos de trinta minutos do centro de uma grande cidade não devia ter construção abaixo de dez andares (e digo apenas dez para não chocar o Portugal dos pequeninos, salazarento, fascinado pela pobreza da ruralidade e avesso à construção em altura típica das zonas urbanas em países desenvolvidos).(...)
É um desperdício que tal não aconteça. Desperdiça-se a capacidade dos transportes públicos, que ficam subutilizados precisamente onde seriam mais rentáveis. Desperdiça-se valor imobiliário, porque o solo mais valioso de uma região metropolitana é usado para pastagem e cultivo de cereais. Desperdiça-se espaço, porque a habitação junto a transportes públicos não precisa de tanto terreno para estacionamento. E comete-se um atentado ambiental, porque a baixa densidade obriga mais pessoas a usar viatura própria, aumentando as emissões e congestionando as vias. (...)
Noutros países, a promoção imobiliária é parte integrante da expansão e financiamento da rede de transportes. O exemplo mais conhecido é o do Japão. Os operadores ferroviários privados fazem projetos de expansão que incluem a componente imobiliária. Ao mesmo tempo que expandem linhas, promovem o crescimento em torno das principais estações. A promoção imobiliária paga a expansão, criam-se novas centralidades e rentabiliza-se a rede existente. A expansão da rede fica mais barata, ganha-se habitação junto a transportes públicos e sobra dinheiro para investir em material circulante e em frequência.
As grandes ferroviárias privadas japonesas são, na prática, empresas imobiliárias que por acaso também operam comboios(...)"
Pedro Santa Clara retweeted
Sobre o discurso do presidente cubano que assumiu os problemas económicos do comunismo num longo discurso de 40 minutos. Vale a pena ouvir. Aqui 3 exemplos em que ele desmente vários argumentos da esquerda portuguesa (não só dos comunistas).
Charles Fourier promised you harmony through "attractive labor," and roughly 300 American communes spent the 1840s discovering that promise was worthless.
The scheme worked like this. Fourier divided human nature into twelve "passions" and insisted that if you organized labor around these passions, work would feel like play. People would rotate through tasks they loved. The phalanx (his ideal community of exactly 1,620 people) would hum along on enthusiasm alone. Albert Brisbane sold this to American readers through the New York Tribune, Horace Greeley amplified it, and thousands of literate, idealistic Easterners signed up. Brook Farm converted to Fourierism in 1844. The North American Phalanx in New Jersey lasted from 1843 to 1856, the rare survivor. Most of the rest collapsed inside three years.
Passion-matching never accounted for the fact that somebody has to milk the cows at 5 a.m. in February. Manure does not move itself because you feel a "composite passion" about it. The communes filled up with journalists, ministers, teachers, and assorted reformers who fancied themselves visionaries, and almost no actual farmers who knew how to keep livestock alive through a New England winter. So the unpleasant, urgent, unglamorous work went undone. Fourier had no price system to tell anyone what was scarce or valuable, no profit signal to direct effort, no way to economize on anything. He replaced calculation with sentiment and expected abundance.
Then came the bickering, which was inevitable. Without private property and prices, every decision about who does what became a political brawl settled by personality and faction. Doctrinal purists fought the pragmatists. The Sylvania Association in Pennsylvania bought poor land, ran short of capital, and folded by 1845. Members drifted off and debts piled up. Central planning starves.
You cannot abolish scarcity by feeling differently about it. Fourier's followers learned that lesson with their own savings and their own empty grain bins, which is the only honest way anyone ever learns it.































