10 abril 2016
09 abril 2016
Fato da Semana: Panama Papers
Fato: Panamá Papers
Data: 3 abril de 2016
Fonte: Jornal alemão Süddeutsche Zeitung
Precedentes
2015 = Um anônimo encaminhou documentos para o jornal alemão Süddeutsche Zeitung
2015 = O jornal pede ajuda a um pool da imprensa para analisar os documentos. No Brasil participam o Estado de S Paulo, o portal Uol e a Rede TV!
03/abr/16 = Divulgada as primeiras conclusões da investigação. Dezenas de políticos são citados, inclusive de países desenvolvidos.
05/abr/16 = O primeiro-ministro da Islândia renuncia. É a primeira vítima das denúncias.
06/abr/16 = Dois contadores foram usado pela empresa CAOA para abrir offshore no Panamá, segundo o Estado de S Paulo
Notícia boa para contabilidade? Deveria ser uma notícia neutra, de evasão de divisas e escândalos políticos. Mas há notícias de envolvimento de contadores, que foram usados como testa de ferro. Além disto, os problemas que já apareceram parecem estar relacionados com a falta de transparência.
Desdobramentos - O volume de informação é longo, mas já se sabe de alguns políticos envolvidos. Ao longo dos próximos dias novas denúncias podem surgir. Além disto, poderá existir uma ligação com outros escândalos.
Mas a semana só teve isto? De forma nenhuma. O CFC resolveu divulgar uma nota sobre a situação política, mas realmente foi uma decepção. A nota não estava assinada, como bem observou Vladmir Almeida, e entendemos que a entidade assumiu uma posição de apoio ao governo.
Data: 3 abril de 2016
Fonte: Jornal alemão Süddeutsche Zeitung
Precedentes
2015 = Um anônimo encaminhou documentos para o jornal alemão Süddeutsche Zeitung
2015 = O jornal pede ajuda a um pool da imprensa para analisar os documentos. No Brasil participam o Estado de S Paulo, o portal Uol e a Rede TV!
03/abr/16 = Divulgada as primeiras conclusões da investigação. Dezenas de políticos são citados, inclusive de países desenvolvidos.
05/abr/16 = O primeiro-ministro da Islândia renuncia. É a primeira vítima das denúncias.
06/abr/16 = Dois contadores foram usado pela empresa CAOA para abrir offshore no Panamá, segundo o Estado de S Paulo
Notícia boa para contabilidade? Deveria ser uma notícia neutra, de evasão de divisas e escândalos políticos. Mas há notícias de envolvimento de contadores, que foram usados como testa de ferro. Além disto, os problemas que já apareceram parecem estar relacionados com a falta de transparência.
Desdobramentos - O volume de informação é longo, mas já se sabe de alguns políticos envolvidos. Ao longo dos próximos dias novas denúncias podem surgir. Além disto, poderá existir uma ligação com outros escândalos.
Mas a semana só teve isto? De forma nenhuma. O CFC resolveu divulgar uma nota sobre a situação política, mas realmente foi uma decepção. A nota não estava assinada, como bem observou Vladmir Almeida, e entendemos que a entidade assumiu uma posição de apoio ao governo.
08 abril 2016
Som da Sexta - DNCE
Para quem já gostava do Som da Sexta, um aviso: o Pedro estudou na Escola de Música de Brasília. Eu não... ;)
DNCE tocou muito na minha lista esta semana e achei justo colocar aqui. Vai que anima o seu fim de semana! Com essa de “vai impeachment”, “não vai impeachment” e a cereja no bolo com o Panamá Papers... Nada como “Cake by the Beach”.
Vejo você andando por aí como se fosse um funeral
Não seja tão séria, garota, por que esses pés gelados?
Estamos apenas começando, não fique com receio
Receio, ah
DNCE tocou muito na minha lista esta semana e achei justo colocar aqui. Vai que anima o seu fim de semana! Com essa de “vai impeachment”, “não vai impeachment” e a cereja no bolo com o Panamá Papers... Nada como “Cake by the Beach”.
Vejo você andando por aí como se fosse um funeral
Não seja tão séria, garota, por que esses pés gelados?
Estamos apenas começando, não fique com receio
Receio, ah
Relatórios e Crise
(Executivos evitam falar da crise. Juliana Machado e Rodrigo Rocha. Valor Econômico, 8 de abril de 2016)
Links
O Hotel onde foi rodado o filme Ex-machina (foto)
Soul City: cidade planejada da década de 60 nos EUA
Contas públicas com déficit também em 2017
Propaganda: futebol e minas
07 abril 2016
Finalmente
O CFC finalmente divulgou um comunicado sobre a situação atual do país. Eis:
Mas ao comentar que o CFC que a saída da crise passa pelos "Poderes Constituídos" e "recompor a normalidade do seu sistema político" não dá uma pista sobre a posição política dos dirigentes do CFC? (Atente para o negrito)
Líderes que mais desapontaram
1: 374 mil votos - Dilma Rousseff, presidente do Brasil
2: 17 mil votos - Rick Snyder, governador de Michigan
3: 15 mil votos - Sepp Blatter e Michel Platini, ex-chefes da FIFA
4: 4,5 mil votos - Martin Shkreli, fundador e ex-CEO da Turing Pharmaceuticals
5: 4 mil votos - Martin Winterkorn, ex dirigente da Volkswagen
6: 2,6 mil votos - Chris Christie, governador de New Jersey
7: 2,5 mil votos - Jeff Smisek, ex-CEO da United Continental Holdings
8: 2,3 mil votos - Marissa Mayer, CEO do Yahoo
9: 1,9 mil votos - Rahm Emmanuel, prefeito de Chicago
10: 1,6 mil votos - Al Giordano e Steven Nardizzi, ex-COO e CEO da The Wounded Warrior
11: 1,4 mil votos - Michael Pearson, ex-CEO da Valeant Pharmaceuticals (saiu na lista de melhores executivos em 2009)
12: 1,3 mil votos - Elizabeth Holmes, fundadora da Theranos
13: 1,2 mil votos - Steve Ells & Montgomery Moran, co-CEOs da Chipotle Mexican Grill
14: 1,1 mil votos - Tony Hsieh, CEO da Zappos
15: 1,1 mil votos - Parker Conrad, ex-CEO da Zenefits
16: 1,1 mil votos: Gustavo Martinez, ex-CEO da J. Walter Thompson
Fonte: Adaptado daqui
Líder que mais desapontou: Dilma
A Fortune publicou o resultado de uma votação sobre os líderes que mais desapontaram ,que vinha ocorrendo há uma semana. Com mais de 374.000 votos, Dilma foi a primeira colocada. Em segundo, com 17.000 votos ficou o givernador de Michigan Rick Snyder. Chegaram em terceiro Sepp Blatter e Michel Platini, chefes da FIFA.
Ilusão da objetividade
“Have you ever noticed when you’re driving,” the comedian George Carlin commented, “that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?”
True enough. But when you think for a moment about Carlin’s quip, how could it be otherwise? You’ve made a decision about the appropriate speed for the driving conditions, so by definition everybody else is driving at a speed that you regard as inappropriate.
If I am driving at 70 and pass a car doing 60, perhaps my view should be, “Hmm, the average opinion on this road is that the right speed is 65.” Almost nobody actually thinks like this, however. Why not?
Lee Ross, a psychologist at Stanford University and co-author of a new book, The Wisest One in the Room, describes the problem as “naive realism”. By this he means the seductive sense that we’re seeing the world as it truly is, without bias or error. This is such a powerful illusion that whenever we meet someone whose views conflict with our own, we instinctively believe we’ve met someone who is deluded, rather than realising that perhaps we’re the ones who could learn something.
The truth is that we all have biases that shape what we see. One early demonstration of this was a 1954 study of the way people perceived a college-football game between Dartmouth and Princeton. The researchers, Albert Hastorf and Hadley Cantril, showed a recording of the game to Dartmouth students and to Princeton students, and found that their perceptions of it varied so wildly that it is hard to believe they actually saw the same footage: the Princeton students, for example, counted twice as many fouls by Dartmouth as the Dartmouth students did.
[...]
We see what we want to see. We also tend to think the worst of the “idiots” and “maniacs” who think or act differently. One study by Emily Pronin and others asked people to fill in a survey about various political issues. The researchers then redistributed the surveys, so that each participant was shown the survey responses of someone else. Then the participants were asked to describe their own reasoning and speculate about the reasoning of the other person.
People tended to say that they were influenced by rational reasons such as “attention to fact”, and that people who agreed with them had similar motives. Those who disagreed were thought to be seeking “peer approval”, or acting out of “political correctness”. I pay attention to facts but you’re a slave to the approval of your peers. I weigh up the pros and cons but you’re in the pocket of the lobbyists.
Even when we take a tolerant view of those who disagree with us, our empathy only goes so far. For example, we might allow that someone takes a different view because of their cultural upbringing — but we would tend to feel that they might learn the error of their ways, rather than that we will learn the error of ours.
Pity the BBC’s attempts to deliver objective and neutral coverage of a politicised issue such as the British referendum on leaving the EU. Eurosceptics will perceive a pro-Brussels slant, Europhiles will see the opposite. Both sides will assume corruption, knavery or stupidity is at play. That is always possible, of course, but it is also possible that passionate advocates simply don’t recognise objectivity when they see it.
t is hard to combat naive realism because the illusion that we see the world objectively is such a powerful one. At least I’ve not had to worry about it too much myself. Fortunately, my own perspective is based on a careful analysis of the facts, and my political views reflect a cool assessment of reality rather than self-interest, groupthink or cultural bias. Of course, there are people to the left of my position. They’re idiots. And the people on my right? Maniacs.
Fonte: Tim Harford- Written for and first published at ft.com.
True enough. But when you think for a moment about Carlin’s quip, how could it be otherwise? You’ve made a decision about the appropriate speed for the driving conditions, so by definition everybody else is driving at a speed that you regard as inappropriate.
If I am driving at 70 and pass a car doing 60, perhaps my view should be, “Hmm, the average opinion on this road is that the right speed is 65.” Almost nobody actually thinks like this, however. Why not?
Lee Ross, a psychologist at Stanford University and co-author of a new book, The Wisest One in the Room, describes the problem as “naive realism”. By this he means the seductive sense that we’re seeing the world as it truly is, without bias or error. This is such a powerful illusion that whenever we meet someone whose views conflict with our own, we instinctively believe we’ve met someone who is deluded, rather than realising that perhaps we’re the ones who could learn something.
The truth is that we all have biases that shape what we see. One early demonstration of this was a 1954 study of the way people perceived a college-football game between Dartmouth and Princeton. The researchers, Albert Hastorf and Hadley Cantril, showed a recording of the game to Dartmouth students and to Princeton students, and found that their perceptions of it varied so wildly that it is hard to believe they actually saw the same footage: the Princeton students, for example, counted twice as many fouls by Dartmouth as the Dartmouth students did.
[...]
We see what we want to see. We also tend to think the worst of the “idiots” and “maniacs” who think or act differently. One study by Emily Pronin and others asked people to fill in a survey about various political issues. The researchers then redistributed the surveys, so that each participant was shown the survey responses of someone else. Then the participants were asked to describe their own reasoning and speculate about the reasoning of the other person.
People tended to say that they were influenced by rational reasons such as “attention to fact”, and that people who agreed with them had similar motives. Those who disagreed were thought to be seeking “peer approval”, or acting out of “political correctness”. I pay attention to facts but you’re a slave to the approval of your peers. I weigh up the pros and cons but you’re in the pocket of the lobbyists.
Even when we take a tolerant view of those who disagree with us, our empathy only goes so far. For example, we might allow that someone takes a different view because of their cultural upbringing — but we would tend to feel that they might learn the error of their ways, rather than that we will learn the error of ours.
Pity the BBC’s attempts to deliver objective and neutral coverage of a politicised issue such as the British referendum on leaving the EU. Eurosceptics will perceive a pro-Brussels slant, Europhiles will see the opposite. Both sides will assume corruption, knavery or stupidity is at play. That is always possible, of course, but it is also possible that passionate advocates simply don’t recognise objectivity when they see it.
t is hard to combat naive realism because the illusion that we see the world objectively is such a powerful one. At least I’ve not had to worry about it too much myself. Fortunately, my own perspective is based on a careful analysis of the facts, and my political views reflect a cool assessment of reality rather than self-interest, groupthink or cultural bias. Of course, there are people to the left of my position. They’re idiots. And the people on my right? Maniacs.
Fonte: Tim Harford- Written for and first published at ft.com.
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)
Postagens
