explicar l'esperança de vida / Explicar la esperanza de vida.

Els desenvolupadors de gapminder han preparat un PPT molt xulo per explicar l'esperança de vida, que és un indicador fonamental del nivell de salut d'una col·lectivitat. Utilitzen una comparació entre 5 nounats burundesos i 5 suecs, que representen la mitjana dels cinc quintils d'edat corresponents ordenats dels que falten primer als que arriben a més majors, i em pareix que resulta molt clara per als estudiants, des del rigor i la bellesa de les dades. Com que està sota llicència Creative Commons (thanks, pals) m'he pres la molèstia de traduir-ho al castellà i al català, i de pas l'he passat a OpenDocument, de tal manera que qualsevol pot no només baixar-se la presentació, sinó també el programa per exposar-la, per exemple a Libreoffice.

Presentació en català.

Presentació en castellà.

Qualsevol millora o comentari serà ben rebuda. Ja sabeu, difon la idea. Per suposat es pot emprar, modificar i/o transmetre sense més límits que mantindre l'atribució als autors.

Read More

When GDP is not a good indicator (and why)

This year our outcome is just 2 chickens... I eat them both. None for you. GDP will say we have 1 chicken per capita. goo.gl/lz9EA
— Kepa G. de Latorre (@KepaGdeLatorre) 30 de maig de 2013

GDP is widely used as an indicator of development. As a matter of fact it is the main indicator mass media, economists and politicians use to show how an economy is performing, and we rarely see other figures. However, GDP is not always a good indicator, taken alone. In this post I intend to demonstrate why not. I can advance that we'll find two issues: average and market dependence.

To begin with, we need to explain what GDP actually is. The standard definition is that Gross Domestic Product, or GDP, is the total market value of all final goods and services produced in a country in a given year. It is to say, it's the sum of total consumption, investment and government spending plus the difference between exports and imports.

.  

We could more generally say that it is what an economy have produced in a given period, so GDP will roughly tell us the size of an economy, any given year. If we want to compare between different countries then, because countries can have very different number of citizens -think about comparing China and Sweden: there are 142 Chinese for every single Swedish-, we need to calculate the GDP per person, just dividing the total GDP by the number of citizens. That’s called GDP per capita -and it's also known as per capita income. Finally what matters most for checking how we are doing is not the static volume of the GDPpc, but its growth (or decline), because the GDPpc tells us where we are but not where we are going or how we’ve done recently.

The first problem with GDPpc as an indicator of performance is that it is an average, what means it gives you an information that can be hugely misleading if we don’t take into account the distribution of wealth. Imagine that you and me were a very simple closed economy ourselves, and we produce chicken. This year our outcome is just 2 chickens... and I eat them both. None for you. Now GDP will say we have 1 chicken per capita.

If this example feels too simple to you we can take the leap to the real world. There is an index (we may talk about it in another post) inspired by the Nobel-prize winner Amartya Sen and developed by the Pakistani Mahbub ul Haq named Human Development Index (HDI), which is used by the United Nations to calculate development bearing in mind not only income but also two more dimensions: health and education. Small oil-producer countries such as Qatar, Kuwait or the United Arab Emirates typically rank very high in GDPpc -being Qatar the richest country in the world. However, when we also consider these other dimensions, they fall to positions 30 to 40 in the HDI. Qatar ranked 36 in 2012. How come? That's because they are fairly unequal countries and GDPpc is overrating their average development: some Qatari are extremely rich and, as the country is small, they push up the average significantly -and also to some extent because their spectacular growth has happened in the last 30 years or so and it hasn't fully translated onto the other indicators, but that's another story. I'd suggest to take a minute to compare these two indexes in the map below:

Back to our question, the other big issue with GDP is that it only takes into account what comes through the market. Imagine now any economy which have a beautiful forest. We can decide whether we cut down the trees or we preserve the forest. If we decide to preserve the forest GDP would go unaltered.

We won’t be making any profit through any market and therefore, from a GDP point of view, our economy is not growing at all. But if what we do is cutting the trees down then we are paying wages to the lumberjacks and the truck-drivers, we are selling the timber itself, we make furniture with it and pay designers, retailers and management, during the whole process -hopefully- we pay taxes, we have been using (and paying for) energy, generating and processing waste... GDP is growing a lot.

But are we now -after destroying and selling the forest- richer or poorer than with the conservation option? From a GDP point of view there’s no doubt, we are much richer. As it does not exist a market for the environmental value of conserving the forest it simply has no room in the GDP indicator. Instead it only becomes valuable when we bring it down. But that is, of course, wrong. The forest has many values in its own right, even "merely economic" values: just think about the tourists that visit us for our beautiful environment, the soil and moisture that is kept thanks to the trees, the animals living within, the clean air, the real estate increased value of living close to it and so on and so forth. It's only that there is no market for them -they are (positive) externalities, a concept I'll talk about in another post. In this category of not-market (or not visible through the official markets) goods and services we can find other sound activities that are not reflected in GDP: for instance, housekeeping and black economy might amount to a great deal of (hidden) economic activity.

As it does not exist a market for the environmental value of conserving the forest it has no room in the GDP... goo.gl/lz9EA
— Kepa G. de Latorre (@KepaGdeLatorre) 30 de maig de 2013

Summarizing, GDP may not be a good indicator of performance when taken alone. Specifically when we face large inequalities and/or large externalities it can be really misleading. The United States' GDPpc has grown quite a lot in the last century, at an average 2%, nevertheless you can check in this website of the Economic Policy Institute how that growth has been distributed. I'd recommend to play with the tools it provides to check the trends in three periods: before the World War II, 1945-1980 and 1980-nowadays. Of course very different economy policies were taken place -further on we ought to talk about Keynes. The meaningful question that arises is: does the increase in GDPpc reflect a better life for most of today's Americans -namely 90% of them- than their parents had enjoyed?

Read More

Manual de guerrilla para sobrevivir a los modales ingleses

Son muy corteses. Extremadamente corteses. Para cualquier forastero sensato pueden parecer demasiado corteses. Atendí al público en el centro de Londres y aún hoy tengo que hablar por teléfono a diario con cockneys descontentos y, aunque la clientela es variopinta, he aprendido que cuando me enfrento a un verdadero gentleman (o lady) inglés tengo que pasar a Modo Cortesía Masiva. No es extraño verte inmerso en un bucle de thankyous y sonrisas del que tienes vagas nociones de cómo ha empezado y del que definitivamente no tienes ni idea de cómo salir. En una transacción sencilla de menos de 30 segundos puedes fácilmente contar ocho o diez thankyous... por cada parte. Para una persona normal, con una educación continental media, puede ser desorientador y es difícil seguir el ritmo sin sentir que se está incurriendo en algún tipo de pantomima. No es el caso, os lo prometo, son así. Y, de hecho, no corresponder al tornado de pleases, thankyous y welcomes puede ser considerado muy rude. Así que he pensado que os pueden interesar unos consejos, y un análisis más detallado del fenómeno. Primero, dos consejos básicos: acabe como acabe la frase que hayas dicho, siempre puedes (y debes) añadir un thankyou al final. Incluso aunque la frase acabase con un agradecimiento, puedes decir thank you, thank you, no pasa nada. Está bien. Las preguntas, si son indirectas, mejor. Nada de preguntar a quemarropa, así a lo bruto. Mejor empiezas la frase por "I was wondering if..." o algún otro subterfugio que te permita preguntar sin signo de interrogación. Como sin molestar.

Pero no te dejes engañar: son corteses, pero son humanos, así que han desarrollado estrategias, matices imperceptibles en la entonación, gestos sutiles, que les permiten ser extremadamente bordes cuando el cuerpo se lo pide, eso sí, manteniendo la compostura y flema británicas. He descubierto que el inglés es el único idioma del mundo (hasta donde llega mi, por otro lado escaso, bagaje lingüístico-cultural) donde "Thank You" puede querer decir "eres tonto" y "I am sorry" puede perfectamente significar "que te follen, zorra". Sería algo así: "I have told you the black one. Thank You." Profundicemos en el detalle, porque el texto llano y escrito no refleja fielmente todo el proceso: Se debe hacer enfatizando y ralentizando la entonación en "the black", para que se note que el otro es medio lelo y no había entendido a la primera, y escupiendo el thank-you lentamente y desde el paladar, levantando ligera -pero perceptiblemente- el labio superior y  pegando dos pequeños y firmes cabezazos afirmativos al final de la frase, uno por sílaba. El labio superior se deja arriba el tiempo que consideremos necesario, hasta que el lenguaje no verbal del interlocutor nos diga que definitivamente ha entendido el insulto. El susodicho nos puede contestar entonces: "I know, madam/sir, though I have no black ones left, I am sorry." En este caso conviene acentuar también el I am sorry y ladear ligeramente la cabeza, alejando la barbilla, hasta mirar al contrincante -verbal- desde un solo ojo, e incluso arquear las cejas y apretar los labios mientras se levanta una -y solo una- de las comisuras de los labios (yo recomiendo la más alejada). Si se siente uno inspirado puede incluso finalizar el escorzo encogiéndose de hombros. La conversación, pues, se podría traducir por: "que te he dicho que el negro, mongol". "No quedan, te jodes.".

Lo importante es mantener la compostura. Un please o un thank you al final de cada frase, o los dos a la vez. Mejor los dos a la vez. No inmutarse por insultante que parezca la interacción. Si te cargan mucho conviene recordar que la inglesa ha sido, de lejos, la metrópolis más cruel de la historia universal, desde la guerra del opio en China hasta los nativos americanos, pasando por media África y el inmenso subcontinente Indio, por no hablar de irlandeses, escoceses, galeses, cien años contra Francia, la batalla de Trafalgar, Margaret Thatcher y el sistema financiero mundial. Así que contrólate, sonríe y da las gracias. Por si acaso.

Read More

Fer que els Mercats funcionen per als Pobres (M4P)

Un altre mercat és possible?

Vaja per davant que jo sempre sospite dels "mercats", així en general i dels apòstates dels mercats en particular. Perquè habitualment sota la retòrica pro-mercats hi trobem gent que el que en realitat demana, ho sàpiga o no, és que els mercats no funcionen com suposadament haurien de funcionar, és a dir, demana que es liberalitzen i es desregulen. O siga, que es deixe camp obert a que els actors amb més poder dintre del mercat generen situacions d'oligopoli o de col·lusió implícita, facen trampa, s'apropien de l'excedent del consumidor, carreguen les seues externalitats en la resta d'agents socials -presents i futurs-, eliminen la competència, aprofiten les assimetries d'informació en el seu favor, exploten els treballadors sense trabes i obtinguen beneficis extraordinaris de la cerca de rendes. Tot això és negatiu per a la societat i per al funcionament de l'economia. I per supost del mercat, entés com s'enten en Introducció a l'Economia. Aleshores es dóna la paradoxa que els defensors dels mercats, generalment, aboguen pel malfuncionament dels mercats. El que cal no és menys regulació sinó millor regulació. De fet és paradigmàtic que els països que han progressat d'una manera contundent durant l'última dècada (Xina, Latinoamèrica, Sud-Est d'Àsia) ho hagen fet gràcies a una economia de mercat que controla de manera efectiva el mercat, allunyats del Consens de Washington i de les recomanacions, no sempre inocents, dels fans dels mercats "lliures". Però. Però ho han fet, al capdavall, mitjançant el mercat.

Pobresa i Mercat

Les poblacions empobrides depenen del mercat per a quasi tot. Hi depenen per a la seua supervivència perquè és on hi venen el seu únic actiu, la seua força de treball. Hi depenen per a proveïr-se de béns i serveis, fins i tot aquells que a l'Occident estem acostumats a rebre per altres mecanismes: educació, sanitat, fins i tot l'aigua -sovint porta a porta. Llevat de pocs casos exitosos (Cuba i darrerament Veneçuela) aquesta dependència del mercat és molt més marcada entre els més pobres que en cap altre estrat social. L'imatge que hem de tenir, perquè és la realitat generalitzada, és la d'uns Estats amb una capacitat fiscal molt limitada que no és capaç d'arribar de manera efectiva, o en absolut, a capes molt amples de la societat i la presència d'ONGD internacionals que estan molt atomitzades i que tenen criteris sovint divergents.

Poc importa, llavors, si hom està "a favor" o "en contra" dels mercats per se -si és que aquesta posició no resulta ser igual que estar a favor o en contra de l'aire, de les mans esquerres o dels diners- perquè la realitat és que els mercats estan ahí, afecten els pobres d'una manera dramàtica, i és dintre del mercat on hem de buscar els mecanismes i les institucions que perpetuen les situacions d'exclussió i pobresa.

Si es preten actuar contra les causes i no els efectes de la pobresa és imprescindible una anàlisi potent dels mercats que marquen la vida de les poblacions objectius. I en aquest cas quan dic mercats vull dir Sistemes de Mercat, o siga no soles el nucli del mercat (diguem la clàssica oferta i demanda) sinó les normes -formals o informals-, les institucions, les funcions de recolzament -que són, a la seua vegada, altres mercats per dret propi-, la tecnologia, etcètera.

Sostenibilitat dels Projectes de Cooperació

Un dels majors handicaps de la cooperació és aconseguir la sostenibilitat, que en aquest context no és més que la permanència dels canvis una vegada finalitzada la intervenció. I hem de reconèixer que s'està fent, en general, malament. Massa sovint les intervencions generen dependència i són insostenibles, i el motiu principal és que es decideix actuar directament proveïnt un servei o un bé que es considera necessari -i de vegades ho és- sense plantejar seriosament com la societat receptora el podrà mantenir una vegada detès el finançament extern. No he vist cap projecte de cooperació que no parle de l'apropiació per part dels beneficiaris i de la sostenibilitat una vegada finalitzada la intervenció. Però escriure en una proposta és molt barat i les formulacions són agossarades. Si l'agència o ONG ha proveït directament el servei... qui el continuarà proveïnt després? I si hi ha un candidat clar a ocupar eixa funció, per què no se l'ha recolzat i preparat des del principi de la intervenció i ha sigut ell l'agent del canvi en lloc de l'organització externa?

La cosa és que massa vegades els projectes no tenen una incidència a llarg termini i quan la tenen aquesta pot perfectament ser negativa. No cal anar a casos d'elefants blancs -hotels en el no-res o pous que cal tancar perquè són un perill per als xiquets i una font d'infecció-. També poden tenir una incidència negativa perquè destrueixen estructures anteriors -que per molt informals o poc adaptades a la ideologia del cooperant en qüestió que siguen, funcionen- o senzillament impedeixen el desenvolupament de noves iniciatives endògenes.

M4P

Per tot això em pareix molt interessant l'estratègia Making Markets Work for the Poor (M4P) proposada per l'Agència Suïssa de Cooperació i altres iniciatives similars, com els Mercats Inclussius del PNUD. La clau per a mí està en un coneixement rigoròs i profund del sistema de mercat on es preten incidir, dels seus constrenyiments i de les seues millores potencials des d'una perspectiva pro-Poor. I altre gran avantatge és que en lloc de prendre un paper protagonista dintre del nucli del mercat es recolza i facilita des de fóra, incidint en els agents que ja hi éren o els potencials nous participants locals. Un parell d'exemples: FIT-SEMA en Uganda va treballar amb les ràdios locals per garantir que la programació era de major qualitat i més útil per als oïents -programes sobre productivitat agrícola o preus dels productes, informació per altres tipus de negocis, etcètera. En lloc de comprar espais i insertar els seus programes com feien la majoria d'ONGD ells van recolzar la capacitat de les ràdios locals per produir-ne els seus propis orientats a les necessitats dels oïents. Resultat: més de 7 milions de nous oïents que reben una informació útil en les seues llengües i produïda per compatriotes seus. Katalyst en Bangladesh, front a l'escasa productivitat agrícola per pràctiques incorrectes i un ús inadequat dels insumos agraris, que tenia conseqüències directes en els ingressos i en la seguretat alimentària de la població, en lloc de fer els clàssics cursos de formació als llauradors locals, etcètera que tenen una incidència necessàriament petita i són poc sostenibles -una vegada finalitzada la intervenció no es pot arribar a nous beneficiaris-, va decidir recolzar la capacitat dels proveïdors de productes agraris -o siga, anant més amunt en la cadena de valor- per a que feren cursos a tots els seus agents, venedors de les xicotetes tendes locals, per a que estos, a la seua vegada, donaren informació i consell als llauradors que els hi compren els productes. D'aquesta manera l'impacte és molt major -1 milió de llauradors- i, una vegada les empreses proveïdores s'han apropiat del model, la sostenibilitat queda garantida.

L'estratègia té límits. Per exemple no pareix que siga la més indicada per a tractar temes de gènere, perquè des d'una perspectiva de mercat és difícil incidir-hi. El mateix pot passar amb temes ambientals, encara que això és menys clar -Soles cal pensar en els mercats de CO2-. A banda de que és una qüestió que ratlla la metafísica o si voleu, la ideologia, el fet de considerar que els Sistemes de Mercat ho abasten tot, o quasi, com els defensors de l'M4P proposen. Però la realitat és que els mercats estan molt presents a la vida dels pobres, i un enfocament que pose als mercats a funcionar per als pobres és clarament una aportació molt útil al debat, sempre acalorat, sobre la incidència, adequació i sostenibilitat de la cooperació.

Read More

It's the governance, stupid!

Germany is so scared of inflation that is even willing to endure a 26% unemployment rate for years if needed ... in Spain. Or in Italy. Of course. Forget about it: the problem we face has nothing to do with sovereign debt, with predatory banks or with the housing bubble either. It is a problem of governance. Does anyone doubt that if the catastrophic unemployment figures were chastising Germany the eurozone would be making completely different policies? I'm sure we'd have a European New Deal from the very first minute of the sinking of the labor market and I believe that any honest economist will tell you the same thing, even though he or she were ideologically against it.

It's easy to be rigorous and be stubbornly wrong when the price is paid by someone else. The problem here is that countries in trouble have ceded monetary instruments to Europe and have renounced fiscal instruments honouring European stability pacts -in the case of Spain even through an express reform of the Constitution- in short, have ceded economic sovereignty to Europe, and do not have absolutely any instrument powerful enough to mend the situation. Spanish democracy, if there ever was one, is vacuous when the sovereignty that matters, which must act immediately and forcefully against the tragedy that is costing lives, does not depend on people's votes.

The oxymoron of capitalist democracy

The so-called internal devaluation, the "solution" that seems to be applying, isn't valid for many reasons: firstly because, unlike a devaluation of the currency, it is asymmetrical and uneven, driving those who are in weak bargaining positions within the economy to lose a lot, while others in positions of power even win with it, it is to say: it's not neutral at all, serves the 1%'s interests. Secondly, because during the process the welfare state is being dismantled, and although ours is obviously imperfect, it's the model of relative equality and security that we had provided ourselves with: public health and education are being destroyed, the social protection networks collapse. Thirdly, and may be most importantly, because it is too slow. Today's unemployed workers, those who are living the tragedy of the eviction, the young unemployed graduates, the long-term unemployed people and the families with no income whatsoever can't wait for solutions in 2018. Actually, the internal devaluation is not a solution, there is no policy behind, it is the simple realization that we are in such a bad situation that real wages are falling and will eventually reach a level low enough to make our country competitive again, through the price mechanisms. But when will they have fallen so much to become competitive within the world's global markets? And how much will have to fall for that? Spain should not aspire to compete through the argument of price but through the innovation and quality ones, and can do so because it's got many highly educated young professionals. This might be the real main reason that impels Germany -through its ECB- to act so blindly and to punish us: because that would send us to the second division and, thereby, would eliminate a potential competitor.

As a matter of fact the European Periphery do have a last instrument: we may leave the euro or threaten to do so if Europe doesn't take seriously a 26% unemployment rate. And here we face a second problem of governance: any legitimate government accountable to informed voters would have already gone to Brussels and would have striken its fist on the table. But our governments are cognitively captured by the Washington Consensus and the neoliberal orthodoxy and think, thanks to the deeply undemocratic bipartisanship system imposed on us in the Spanish transición, that their position is safe, that they can simply alternate one another until hopefully one day the crisis will be over by itself.

The ECB President and the Spanish Economy Minister having fun

That several important countries like Spain and Italy, along with some others such as Greece, Portugal and Ireland were to leave the euro or threatened to do so may be a tragedy, but mostly for the euro. For outgoing countries it would be a chance to regain the economic policy instruments they need to lift themselves and the ability to devalue their currencies and avoid the drain of the internal devaluation, so that the losses from the withdrawal of the common currency would be more than offset. In fact, it is not clear that there had to be any significant loss: EU countries which didn't enter the euro (Denmark, Sweden and even the Eastern European countries that did not meet the convergence criteria) are doing much better than those that entered, and those outside the currency that find themselves in the edge of serious troubles, namely the UK, it's because they also bought the austerity ideas. The tragedy would be for the euro in terms of political prestige, huge legal mess and economic credibility and influence.

In conclusion, governance is the problem: the incentives of economic policy makers affecting Spain are misaligned with the interests of Spain. It is a problem of democracy, and what we are seeing, therefore, is a disgrace to the citizens of a system they perceive in a more or less explicit way that doesn't respond to their needs and lately even works against their interests. The model discredits itself and this process, which is increasingly accelerating, will ultimately bring to radical political demands for change. The question is whether these changes will lead to a true democracy, more transparent, more direct and better or to something else and potentially dangerous. And the other relevant question is what will be the cost in economic decline, in destruction of the welfare state, in cutting prospects for young people and in human lives.

Read More

És la governació, estúpid!

Alemanya té tanta por a la inflació que està disposada fins i tot a suportar un 26% d'atur durant anys si és menester... a Espanya. O a Itàlia. Ens han fotut. Obliden-se: el problema al que ens enfrontem no té  res a veure amb el deute sobirà, amb els bancs depredadors ni amb la bambolla immobiliària. És un problema de governació. Algú dubta per ventura que si l'atur catastròfic ho tingués Alemanya la zona euro estaria fent unes polítiques completament distintes? Jo estic segur que tindríem un New Deal a l'Europea des del minut ú de l'enfonsament del mercat laboral i estic convençut que qualsevol altre economista sincer els dirà el mateix, fins i tot encara que ell estiga ideològicament en contra de fer-lo.

És fàcil ésser rigorós i estar tossudament equivocat quan el preu l'han de pagar altres. El problema aquí és que els països en dificultats han cedit els instruments monetaris a Europa i han renunciat als instruments fiscals mitjançant els pactes europeus d'estabilitat -en el cas d'Espanya fins i tot fent una reforma exprès de la constitució per confirmar-ho-, en resum, han cedit la seva sobirania econòmica a Europa, i no disposen d'absolutament cap instrument amb l'impacte suficient per a corregir la situació. La democràcia espanyola, si alguna vegada l'ha haguda, queda buida de contingut quan la sobirania que importa als ciutadans -la què ha d'actuar immediatament i amb contundència contra la tragèdia que està costant vides- no depèn per a res dels seus vots.

La mal anomenada devaluació interna, la "solució" que semblen estar aplicant-nos, no ens serveix per molts motius: primer perquè, a diferència d'una devaluació de la moneda, aquella és asimètrica i desigual, fomentant que els qui es troben en posicions negociadores febles dintre de l'economia perden molt, mentre altres en posicions de poder fins i tot guanyen amb ella, és a dir, no és neutral. Segon perquè en el procés es desmantella un Estat del Benestar que, encara que manifestament imperfecte en el nostre cas, és el model de relativa igualtat i seguretat de què ens havíem dotat: es destrueixen la sanitat i l'educació pública, les xarxes socials i fins i tot es posen en perill les pensions. Tercer i encara més important, perquè és massa lenta. ALS desocupats d'ara, els que estan vivint la tragèdia dels desnonaments, als joves llicenciats aturats, als desocupats de llarga durada, a les famílies sense ingressos, no els serveixen les solucions per al 2018. De fet, en realitat, la devaluació interna no és cap solució, no és cap política, és la simple constatació que estem tan malament que els salaris reals cauen i, eventualment, arribaran a un nivell tal que facen al nostre país, de nou, competitiu pel mecanisme dels preus. Però quan hauran caigut tant per a tornar-nos competitius en el mercat global? I quant haurien de caure per a això? Espanya no ha d'aspirar a competir per l'argument dels preus sinó de la qualitat, i pot fer-ho perquè conta amb molts joves molt bé formats. Potser per això Alemanya es fa la fava i ens castiga: perquè així ens envia a segona divisió i elimina un potencial competidor.

En rigor els països del Sud sí disposen d'un últim instrument: poden abandonar l'euro o amenaçar amb fer-ho si Europa no es pren de debò d'una vegada un 26% d'atur. I aquí tenim un segon problema de governació: qualsevol govern legítim que responguera davant uns votants informats ja s'hauria plantat a Brussel·les i hauria fet tremolar les taules. Però els nostres governs estan captats cognitivament pel consens de Washington i l'ortodòxia neoliberal i creuen, gràcies al sistema de bipartidisme profundament antidemocràtic que ens van imposar en la transició, que la seva posició és segura, que poden simplement alternar-se fins que algun dia la crisi s'acabe sola.

El president del BCE, Mario Draghi, i el ministre d'economia espanyol De Guindos fent unes rises

Que diversos països importants com Espanya i Itàlia, juntament amb alguns altres com Grècia, Portugal i Irlanda abandonessin l'euro o amenacessin amb fer-ho potser seria una tragèdia, però ho seria per a l'euro. Per als països sortints seria una oportunitat de recuperar els instruments de política econòmica que necessiten per a eixir per ells mateixos i la possibilitat de devaluar les seves monedes i estalviar-se la sagnia de la devaluació interna, de manera que les pèrdues derivades de la sortida de la moneda comuna quedarien compensades amb escreix. De fet, no està gens clar que hagués cap pèrdua significativa: els països de la unió que no van entrar en l'euro (Dinamarca, Suècia i fins i tot els països de l'Est d'Europa que no complien els criteris de convergència) ho estan fent molt millor que els que si i els que tenen problemes, com el Regne Unit, és perquè també han comprat les idees d'austeritat. La tragèdia seria per a l'euro en termes de prestigi polític, d'enorme embolic jurídic i d'influència econòmica.

En conclusió, el problema és de governació: els incentius dels decisors de les polítiques econòmiques que afecten a Espanya estan mal alineats amb els interessos d'Espanya. És un problema de la democràcia, i el que estem veient, conseqüentment, és un desprestigi davant els ciutadans d'un sistema que perceben d'una manera més o menys explícit que no respon a les seues necessitats i fins i tot que últimament va en contra dels seus interessos. El model es deslegitima i aquest procés, que s'accelera per moments, en última instància portarà exigències de canvi radicals. La qüestió és si aquests canvis portaran a una veritable democràcia, més transparent, més directa i millor o duran a altra cosa. I també quin serà el cost en deteriorament de l'economia, en destrucció de l'Estat del Benestar, en retallada de les perspectives per als joves i en vides humanes.

Read More

Es la gobernanza, estúpido!

Alemania tiene tanto miedo a la inflación que está dispuesta incluso a soportar un 26% de paro durante años si fuera menester... en España. O en Italia. Nos han fastidiado. Olvídense: el problema al que nos enfrentamos no tiene nada que ver con la deuda soberana, con los bancos depredadores ni con la burbuja inmobiliaria. Es un problema de gobernanza. ¿Alguien duda acaso de que si el paro catastrófico lo tuviera Alemania la zona euro estaría haciendo unas políticas completamente distintas? Yo estoy seguro de que  tendríamos un New Deal a la Europea desde el minuto uno del hundimiento del mercado laboral y estoy convencido de que cualquier otro economista sincero les dirá lo mismo, incluso aunque él esté ideológicamente en contra de hacerlo.

Es fácil ser riguroso y estar tercamente equivocado cuando el precio lo tienen que pagar otros. El problema aquí es que los países en apuros han cedido los instrumentos monetarios a Europa y han renunciado a los instrumentos fiscales mediante los pactos europeos de estabilidad -en el caso de España incluso haciendo una reforma exprés de la constitución para refrendarlo-, en resumen, han cedido su soberanía económica a Europa, y no disponen de absolutamente ningún instrumento con el impacto suficiente para corregir la situación. La democracia española, si alguna vez la hubo, queda vacía de contenido cuando la soberanía que importa a los ciudadanos -la que debe actuar de inmediato y con contundencia contra la tragedia que está costando vidas- no depende para nada de sus votos.

La mal llamada devaluación interna, la "solución" que parecen estar aplicándonos, no nos sirve por muchos motivos: primero porque, a diferencia de una devaluación de la moneda, aquella es asimétrica y desigual, fomentando que los que se encuentran en posiciones negociadoras débiles dentro de la economía pierdan mucho, mientras otros en posiciones de poder incluso ganen con ella, es decir, no es neutral. Segundo porque en el proceso se desmantela un Estado del Bienestar que, aunque imperfecto en nuestro caso, es el modelo de relativa igualdad y seguridad de que nos habíamos dotado: se destruyen la sanidad y la educación pública. Tercero y aún más importante porque es demasiado lenta. A los parados de ahora, a los que están viviendo la tragedia de los desahucios, a los jóvenes licenciados en paro, a los parados de larga duración, a las familias sin ingresos, no les sirven las soluciones para el 2018. De hecho, en realidad, la devaluación interna no es ninguna solución, no es ninguna política, es la simple constatación de que estamos tan mal que los salarios reales caen y, eventualmente, llegarán a un nivel tal que hagan a nuestro país, de nuevo, competitivo por el mecanismo de los precios. Pero ¿cuándo habrán caído tanto para volvernos competitivos en el mercado global? ¿Y cuánto tendrán que caer para eso? España no debe aspirar a competir por el argumento de los precios sino de la calidad, y puede hacerlo porque cuenta con muchos jóvenes muy bien formados. Quizá por eso Alemania se hace la tonta y nos castiga: porque así nos envía a segunda división y elimina un potencial competidor.

En rigor los países del Sur sí disponen de un último instrumento: pueden abandonar el euro o amenazar con hacerlo si Europa no se toma en serio de una vez un 26% de paro. Y aquí tenemos un segundo problema de gobernanza: cualquier gobierno legítimo que responda ante unos votantes informados ya se habría plantado en Bruselas y habría hecho temblar las mesas. Pero nuestros gobiernos están captados cognitivamente por el Consenso de Washington y la ortodoxia neoliberal y creen, gracias al sistema de bipartidismo profundamente antidemocrático que nos impusieron en la transición, que su posición es segura, que pueden simplemente alternarse hasta que algún día la crisis se acabe sola.

El presidente del BCE y el ministro de economía español divirtiéndose

Que varios países importantes como España e Italia, junto con algunos otros como Grecia, Portugal e Irlanda abandonaran el euro o amenazaran con hacerlo quizá sería una tragedia, pero lo sería para el euro. Para los países salientes sería una oportunidad de recuperar los instrumentos de política económica que necesitan para salir por sí mismos y la posibilidad de devaluar sus monedas y ahorrarse la sangría de la devaluación interna, de modo que las pérdidas derivadas de la salida de la moneda común quedarían compensadas con creces. De hecho, no está nada claro que hubiera ninguna pérdida significativa: los países de la unión que no entraron en el euro (Dinamarca, Suecia e incluso los países del Este de Europa que no cumplían los criterios de convergencia) lo están haciendo mucho mejor que los que sí y los que tienen problemas, como el Reino Unido, es porque también han comprado las ideas de austeridad. La tragedia sería para el euro en términos de prestigio político, de enorme lío jurídico y de influencia económica.

En conclusión, el problema es de gobernanza: los incentivos de los decisores de las políticas económicas que afectan a España están mal alineados con los intereses de España. Es un problema de la democracia, y lo que estamos viendo, consecuentemente, es un desprestigio ante los ciudadanos de un sistema que perciben de un modo más o menos explícito que no responde a sus necesidades e incluso que últimamente va en contra de sus intereses. El modelo se deslegitima a sí mismo y este proceso, que se acelera por momentos, en última instancia traerá exigencias de cambio radicales. La cuestión es si esos cambios llevarán a una verdadera democracia, más transparente, más directa y mejor o llevarán a otra cosa. Y también cuál va a ser el coste en deterioro de la economía, en destrucción del Estado del Bienestar, en recorte de las perspectivas para los jóvenes y en vidas humanas.

Read More

Teaching Pills 4 - Applied Financial Maths: the implicit grant of the ICO student loan

Many overgraduate students in Spain have applied during the last 4 years to a new kind of student loan, called ICO Renta Universidad, in order to complete their studies with a Master's Degree. This is pretty new in the Spanish system, despite being very common in other Western countries, specially in the UK and the USA. In this particular case the loan had quite favourable conditions: a 3 years grace period (up to 6 years, under certain circumstances), a 0% interest rate and 10 years to be repaid.

Some of my fellow friends, who meet the conditions to defer either one or their first three years of payments, have asked me whether it would be better to do so or not. Of course there is not a general answer for that, because each one of them would have different current situations and, more determinant, future expectations of income and, besides, there are some other uncertainties such as the internal devaluation in Spain, the labour market dynamics and the prospects of inflation. Thus I give NO advice. Nevertheless it tourned out to be a nice sample to explain how financial maths work. I'll take a made-up case study and I'll do some assumptions about unknown variables: I'll suppose Spain keeps up within the euro -nobody knows what could happen with these loans otherwise- and inflation will be low, but not negative*. I'll take inflation rate in a 2%, which is commonly accepted as the usual target for central banks and quite consistent with a depressed economy with an extremely high unemployment**. Finally, I'll take a 15.600€ loan, amount very frequently applied for, since it was the maximum amount for a one-year master's degree.

The three options they face are:

A) Regular payment. Starting in the year t to t+9 and paying 130€ monthly:

130 (€/month) *120 (months in ten years) = 15600€.

B) Defer one year. Starting in the year t+1, paying 130€ monthly every year up to t+8, and 260 €/month the last year, t+9:

130*96 + 260*12 = 15600€.

C) Defer three years. Starting in the year t+3, paying 130€ monthly the first four years and 260€ monthly the last three years:

130*48 + 260*36 = 15600€.

By all means it's the same NOMINAL amount because it is a 0% interest-rated loan. Does it mean that they are just indifferent? Absolutely not. Here is where inflation shows up: the same nominal money today is not worth the same 10 years afterwards -in terms of the goods and services you could buy with it. As most of us can intuitively deduce that means that, provided we face any positive inflation and with a 0% rate, it would be better to delay the payment as long as possible but, how much benefit would we take of that strategy? As I said, it depends on the actual inflation rate which we can't know beforehand, but supposing this 2% average inflation rate for the whole period and that it keeps constant during the period -this is a strong condition but it allows us to calculate and it's impossible to foresee any trend in advance. You should take it as an average- the figures would be:

B) 130*12/(1+0.02)^9 = 1560/1.195 = 1305.34.

It is to say, the money we don't pay in the year t and we pay in the year t+9 is worth 1305.34 in terms of real (year t based) money. 1560-1305.34 = 254.66€, or a 19.5% saving of one-year's part of the total credit for that deferred year (therefore for a 1/10 of the total amount, an extra overall saving of 1.95%).

C) 130*36/(1+0.02)^7 = 4680/1.1487 = 4074.22.

In this case the money we don't pay in the years t, t+1 and t+2 and we pay in the years t+7, t+8 and t+9 respectively, is worth 4074.22 in real money (years t, t+1 and t+2 based) instead of the nominal 4680. So far, so good. Now if we want to put them all in the same base-year (we should!) we need to financially move the gaining of the years t+1 and t+2 to the year t (that's called discounting when it's backwards and capitalizing when it's forwards) -> for t+1: (4074.22/3)/1.02 = 1331.44; for t+2: (4074.22/3)/(1.02^2)= 1305.33. And for the year t the deferred payment was worth 1358.07 (No extra calculations needed, it's already expressed on the base year). If we consider the nominal payment was 1560 every year we have: 1560*3 - (1358.07+1331.44+1305.33) = 4680- 3994.84 = 685.16€ That's the overall gain of the option C expressed in real terms, taking t as the base year. It means an extra 4.4% overall saving.

I keep saying an extra gaining. Why? Because either way or even not delaying any payment we are already benefiting from the 0% interest rate, provided any positive inflation, and we are, therefore receiving a covered transfer from the government or the bank, whoever is covering the rates -I guess it must be the government, banks are not known by their philanthropic approach to lending. We could, for instance, calculate what's been the actual gain of the grace period for the first payment year, because we know the actual inflation 2.989% (2010), 2.377% (2011) and 2.868% (2012). Supposing someone who had the loan approved on the 1st January 2009, the grace period has supposed, so far: 1560 / (1.02989)(1.02377)(1.02868) = 1560/1.0846 = 1438.31. -> 1560-1438.31=121.69€ (year t based) or 8.46% saving for the first year of payments. In conclusion, the money he or she asked to finish the studies has received a sort of 8.5% grant, so far (for the next years we'll need to multiply this discount factor by (1+i)^t+n, being i= real inflation and n= number of years). Obviously this "implicit grant" will be higher as times goes by, provided positive inflation (for the 13th year, taking a 2% average inflation rate it would be 1.02^13 = 1.2936 -> a 29.36% "implicit grant": the 1560€ you have to pay then would be worth roughly a 30% less in real money than when you got them, given this inflation rate). The higher real inflation during the period the higher implicit grant you get, and vice versa. Whether it is fair or not has nothing to do with financial maths (although I can't help saying that I'd rather go for a public and affordable -ideally free- university system and a proper grant scheme for the poor, which allows everyone to get the education they want, regardless of their current or future income and their lower or higher opportunity costs. But this is another story).

I have only exposed the differential figures between option A and option B and C, which was the relevant information to make a decision in this case. Thereby year t is the year you start to pay the loan and not the year you received it, which would be the proper "year zero" to know the total amount of the implicit grant. It is indeed interesting to calculate the global gaining of the loan -to know which percent of it is a sort of implicit transfer- and if you feel curious, given a 2% inflation rate it would be  roughly a 19-23% depending on the payment option you choose, and in our study case it would represent an implicit grant of 3.000€ to 3.800€, but we can't infere the actual inflation rate and such long term predictions are rather unreliable. We know, however, that given any positive inflation we'll have this implicit grant and that the higher inflation the higher grant. Now we just need to patiently wait until 2023 to check which the actual grant will have been***.

So, in conclusion, the decision about paying now or delaying the payments depends, as I said at the beginning, on unknown factors such as the prospects of inflation, the risk aversion of the lenders and their future employability and/or other income resources. The figures are based on crucial and strong assumptions, specially referring to inflation, but it may be worth and it's always interesting to take a look to what numbers have to say.

*deflation is a real danger, though, if the crisis carries on for very long, Germany is still sickly obsessed with inflation and/or more bubbles burst, but this is another point (macroeconomics and economy policy issues) and one of the reasons I DON'T give any advice.

** It is true that inflation in Spain had been traditionally high and we have quite a dysfunctional economy able to sustain high unemployment and high inflation at the same time (a phenomenon known as stagflation) but the amazingly huge unemployment suggests it won't be the case the following years: before the crisis it reached an average 3% and the last 3 years it's been constantly over 2% (2.99%, 2.37% and 2.87%), while at 2008 and 2009 it was only 1.4% and 0.8%. The slowdown of global markets, the decreasing GNP, the still overpriced housing sector and, specially, the unbearable 26% unemployment rate suggest it won't raise any more than 2%. Finally, I've taken into account that the loan is for a total 13 years and, hopefully, the depressed conditions won't last that long, so considering deflation for the next 13 years seems just unreasonable. A 2% will do.

*** And I found a way of writing a future perfect somewhere ;)

Read More

Teaching Pills 3: teaching through ICT

"In God we trust; all others must bring data" Dr. W. Edwards Deming

In my last TP post I wrote about how you can teach with almost no material resources and in this one I'd like to show just the opposite, how you can use in a sensible way some of the huge amount of resources currently provided by the ICT. There are many websites, blogs and even apps which may help you to prepare materials, to decide teaching strategies and to support your work. The few times I have had the chance to teach myself I have relied heavily on powerpoints, dynamic graphs and maps. I have also made internet research about the subject (no matter I had it very clear in my mind), keeping an open-minded approach not only because I am a novice (which I clearly am) but because you may find extraordinary tools. Today I'm speaking just about two sites I've already used. However, before starting I'd better say two important things: firstly, these resources are a support to your lessons, but they can't substitute the teacher, it's important that you prepare yourself properly for every lesson and that you don't rely too much on your PPT or your internet connection. Questions will be asked and you ought to be ready to clearly explain them. Secondly, it's important that you adapt the resources you find to your objectives and to the stages you are working with, because a messy explanation may be worse than no explanation. Once these two warnings have been issued, let's go to the resources:

Gapminder.org: the beauty of stats

Gapminder is a website offering very nice resources. In my lessons of introductory economics to nurses (yeah, I know it sounds weird, it was nice, though) I used them to show some of the stats relating health and wealth, HIV and children by woman. They are very useful to start debates about the underlying causes behind some issues, and doing it from the scientific approach of data. However, they can be used at any level of teaching and they have this beautiful stuff about life expectancy:

We all know what life expectancy means, only that... do we know? Well, we know that it is an economic indicator very often used to measure the health of a society, and thereby, the development level of a country, but most people, specially young students, tend to think about it like if everyone in let's say Rwanda was going to live more or less 56 years, which is their current life expectancy. And everyone in the UK about 80. Of course this is the wrong way to interpret the indicator. Life expectancy is an average and, thus, it rather reflects how hard is to arrive to be old in a country, how easy is to die before your time. The guys in gapminder.org have prepared a powerpoint that explains it very clearly. Highly usable. It's worth to take a look:

http://www.gapminder.org/downloads/life-expectancy-ppt

Worldmapper.org: Put your stats on a map

This is a demographic-corrected UK map

We are used to see statistics in number or in graphics. And we are used to physical and political maps of the world. In the worldmapper website we can find maps reflecting statistics. I really like them, they set a very interesting point of view, specially regarding to international development statistics such as poverty, GDP, health, education... they are somehow impressive when you compare different regions and they give you a different sight of both the world and your surroundings.

An adaptation I made of two worldmapper.org maps to provoke debate among students: the red one is the world sized by GDP, the coloured one is the world sized by people who lives with less than 1$ a day

Of course, this two are samples I knew about because I had used them before to teach. You could also explain the carbon footprint and let the kids calculate their own one; there is plenty of sites with Maths or English games... it's up to you to use these resources and make learning a bit funnier.

Read More

Teaching pills 2 - Fractions: Learning by playing

We are increasingly getting used to see our kids having access to a whole set of sophisticated (and expensive) tools designed to helping them study: laptops, next generation tablets and mobiles, digital blackboards, very advanced and complicated software, internet and so on. Nevertheless, I believe that the most important thing still is, and will always be, a passionate teacher and the will to learn of the students. You can encourage learning without any of these gadgets, and you can be very effective in breeding knowledge and attitudes with a pencil, somewhere to write on and a bit of creativity.

Two years ago I went to Nicaragua with an education Spanish charity and I had, among other goals, the objective of working with the local teachers in maths pedagogy. Specifically we had to work about fractions equivalency and operations, and we had to bear in mind not just the national curriculum but also the difficult conditions they face every day, almost without material means or support of any kind. That's the main reason the charity worked there. Because of the students' age, which was rather diverse, from may be 6 to young teenagers of even 15 -this is only one of the difficulties these teachers have to deal with, if you believe your job is tricky you should go there and see how they manage to teach in these conditions. Well, I wanted to focus it as a game, and one with different levels. After some weeks of thinking and reading about the question that's the game I proposed for learning fractions equivalency:

You need something to write with (say a pencil) and something to write on (say a paper). You don't need anything else. Not even a blackboard and not for sure a maths book, which they did not have most of the time. Then you make cards, or better, the kids make their own cards, and in these cards you (they) write fractions in different forms: 1/2, 2/2; 1/4, 2/4, 3/4, 4/4.... for the whole game you write percents: 25%, 50%..... numbers: 0,33; 0,4; 0,5; 0,66; 0,75....... and there is no rule saying you need to stop in 1, you can make fractions above the unit: 6/4; 12/6; 20/5........ and percents and numbers as well: 150%; 300%; 1,25; 2,5; 4............ and even mixed numbers: 2 1/4; 1 1/5....... The amount of cards you'll have at the end is up to you. It depends on the number of kids you are working with, the deepness you need to work and so forth. I like to have many, hundreds of them. You can also repeat them, make some sets, which will help you to work in groups.

And what can you do with these cards? Everything.

I proposed them 4 or 5 different games, but they could (and ought to) work out their own games with them: the more the kids played, the more used they'd get to the fractions equivalency, and the equivalency between fractions, real numbers and percents, and operations with fractions like adding and substracting. My idea was the kids working in groups -because they improve their social skills- but you can also do it individually if you believe that fits better with your conditions. Some of my proposals were: Giving a whole set of cards to each group and a) classify the fractions that are actually the same (like 2/4; 1/2; 5/10) -fractions equivalency-; b) find a number by adding fractions: (find 2? one group find it by adding 1/2 + 4/4 + 2/4 another group can use another cards 4/3 + 2/3...); c) and d) You can repeat these games with fractions and percents and numbers all together and so one can find 2 by adding 0,5 + 100% + 50/100, for instance. And in the game c they'll have a little mountain where 6/3, 4/2, 200%, 50/25 and the number 2 will be together representing the same amount. Another little mountain with 1/3; 0,33; 33%; 3/9, 2/6..... Nice, isn't it? The more they play, the better they'll understand what fractions actually mean. A second session of games, once they are used to the cards (which may as well be in the third or fourth lesson or later, depending of their rhythm) would be giving them an incomplete set of cards, and every group a different one. So, now you can create two new kind of games: 1) negotiation games, where to get to the result they'll need to negotiate with other groups to get the cards they need, while offering the cards they don't need. Interesting introduction to trade, bargain and so on -there is a sort of introduction to David Ricardo and trade theory here, eh?- and working a lot of social skills. 2) You can introduce substracting (and even other operations) to arrive to the goal number.

As a matter of fact you could make up many more games with these cards, focusing on different needs (discover the hidden card -intro to equations-; games to identify prime numbers, and so on). They'll pick it up very quickly, though, and the main target of the cards, let them get the hang of the fractions, will be achieved in just one or two sessions. Besides, they have made the game themselves, and they have learned all this while having fun, challenging their minds. You don't need  more than your will and a pencil.

Read More

Teaching pills 1: Primary Maths. The easy way to multiply

What I love of maths teaching is that you are, may be more than in any other subject, teaching a way of thinking. To be honest I don't really know how multiplying is usually taught in the UK, but in my country in most cases it's still regretfully taught as a memoristic skill, with tables from 1 to 10 that children need to memorize and repeat until they automatically can throw up the result of any single-digit multiplication. In my opinion this is not only a rough and boring way of learning something, it also denies the opportunity of logical and deductive thinking to the children and spoils a chance to reinforce their self-confidence and their understanding of how maths work, the relationship between adding and multiplying, substracting and dividing, and so on. In short, wrong way of multiplying teaching. Moreover, it is hard, takes time and can create an ugly -and mistaken- impression that maths are boring. I bet I can teach any kid who pays attention to multiply in just one session and making it fun. I have tried it before with kids in Nicaragua, kids who had a fairly large lack of previous knowledge -which might have been good, at the end- and most of them got it quickly and, with a few hours of practising, were able to do it by themselves. Of course I haven't "invented" (though "discovered" would be more accurate) this teaching strategy, I am sure it's broadly used, with subtle differences, all over the world. Twenty-five years ago I was taught to multiply with part of this at my school Aire Lliure, which used to be -at least at its origin- an impressive education cooperative, a school based on a sort of libertarian pedagogy, teching how to think instead of what to think. I became a fan and I have just completed it.

Here it comes: My easy way of multiplying that promotes deductive thinking is based in two well-known mnemonic rule -the 9 and 5 rule- which most teachers use to teach to multiply by 5 and 9; the natural ability of mentally adding few times (up to 4); and memorizing just two multiplications: 6x6= 36 and 7x8 = 56. Once you know this, and supposing you are able to add and substract, you have all you need to mentally deduce any single-digit multiplication. Children don't need to memorize anything else and, more important, they'll feel good every time they deduce an unknown one, reinforcing their confidence and their maths liking, which may be really useful for their future.

I guess most of you have got it straight away, but I'm going to explain it with a bit more of detail just in case anyone studied laws -sorry, solicitor and lawyer friends, I know the truth can be painful. First, the mnemonic rules: You all know multiplying by five is easy, just the half ten (v.gr. 8x5 = [the half ten of 8] 40). Most of you might also know that multiplying by nine is very easy indeed, just the previous ten and what's missing to get to nine. It is to say: if you want to multiply, for instance, 6x9, you take the previous ten of six (5, fifty-something), and the unit is what's missing to make nine: 4. So, 6x9= 54. This works. Ok, we've got every single number multiplied by 5 or 9. Then, adding up to four times can be done mentally without effort. So, we have deduced every single digit multiplied by 1 to 5 and by 9. Now we have these two ops, 6x6=36 and 7x8=56, which we'd better memorize (we could eventually add them but I have realized it's a bit tricky for children) and now we have a supporting point to get to every single-digit multiplication directly or by just adding or substracting the number once. Think about any single-digit multiplication, let's say 6x7? the child mental process would go: Ok, I know 6x6=36, so if I add 6 I'll have 6x7! 36+6=42. Good. 8x3? Ok, eight and eight, sixteen, and eight twenty-four. Easy. 8x6? Humpf, well I know 8x7=56, so if I substract 8 I'll have 8x6 -> 56-8=48. Or either I know 6x6=36 I add six twice and I'll have 8x6 -> 36+6=42 +6= 48. And so on, and so forth.

 It's a perfect system, and despite it may look a bit complicated in writing it's very easy indeed to do mentally. What I love of this teaching strategy is that it focus not in memoristic learning but in deductive abilities. It relates multiplying to adding, which is nice, and to substracting also, which is even better because it gives the child a more comprehensive understanding of mathematic relationships, but the important point is that it reinforces a lot their self-confidence and transforms the maths in a deductive game, something that is worth and fun. As it should be.

Read More

Good (and bad) practice among advertisement in Charities / International Development

A short time ago I saw an AWESOME advert, which had been deployed as part of a campaign on safe water supply by UNICEF Sweden. As this and the following are all public advertisements I have felt free to reproduce them here:

I really loved the advert for many reasons and I would use it with no doubt as an example of good practice in charity advertising whether I had to give a lesson about the subject (hopefully some day, why not?) or explain to a friend what I believe should be done in such cases. In my opinion it has a perfect sensitization approach, it is indeed shocking as it must be, while being very simple; it is far from taking any advantage or making an unfair use of the beneficiaries; it is also far away from the moral blackmail that still today is regrettably used sometimes -bombing the tired eyes of the audience with unbearable extreme situations-; technically is perfect; and besides it makes you mull over your preconceptions about which actually are the most harmful dangers the children in empoverished countries face, so, it raises the awareness of the people.

Sensible people might think that among the charities should be a strong commitment with these values, that they'd be specially careful when using pictures or messages, for they are not typical companies trying to fight for customers, they are rather social agents engaged to sensitize the population. To be honest, most of them are aware of that and create nice examples like the bad-water one. Some of them do not. There seems to be an increasing competition between them to get the confidence (and the money) of the largest possible part of the goodwill market -instead of spreading this "market" (sorry for the word) and, therefore, they appear to forget the awareness role and have a competitive approach based on the market rules- say almost-no-rules. Thus, they'd fight to take the money to their projects, and make use of any mean. I'll ilustrate my opinion with two samples.

Please, bear in mind that the following examples have been found after barely one hour of internet research and that I don't intend to critisize any individual charity, but only the way they have tried to advert themselves in this specific poster. I'm sure we could have found adverts alike from many other organisations and good adverts from these ones. I must also thank my fellows and friends Dinka Acevedo and César Jiménez for their contribution.

 First sample: it is incredibly easy to find campaigns making a reproachable use of the beneficiaries, even children, to advert the NGO.

This little girl has eventually become the Hussain Bolt of the medical aid, and the sponsors wanted to be sure their logo was clearly readable. The smile of the lifeguard could also have been used in a toothpaste campaign. I am sure they were able to promote themselves without having to use a child in this rough way. For my standards this is an unfair use of her, even though I have found people thinking otherwise. Anyway, we can do it better than that.

Then, we can find the moral-blackmail-strategies. This would generally consist of appealing to your feelings of guilt by bombing your eyes with dreadful pictures of abject poverty, sickness, misery or hunger. We all have seem them, since they were very tipical in the 70s and specially the Ethiopia's famine was widely used to raise funds. I don't argue that the funds were needed and getting them fastly by any means could eventually have a positive effect in the short term, but they used these kind of pictures far too much and this overuse became in a mental block of the donors (no bother they call them partners, it is part of the marketing). We can find more subtle or imaginative samples though, and I have found one that I believe illustrates exactly what I am trying to explain. It's in Spanish and, even though the picture is quite expressive by itself, I can't help translating the text. It reads: "One of them has got house, food, water, education and medical care. Guess who?" and underneath "Help us to change it". I sincerely hope that this poster has meant one or two sacked people either in the NGO or in the publicity agency. I don't know what annoys me more, if the small child or the glowing dog. This sort of adverts try to steadily blackmail the audience and this is ethically unacceptable and should never be done. It is not giving any useful information, nor raising awareness, just guilt-feeling.

I think that the charity advertisement should be conceived to change attitudes more than raising money, or at least change them while raising money. They must be carefully designed to present the utmost respect to the objective population and to the audience at the same time. They should move to actual actions, for small they were, which help change things for good. In this respect there are indeed many actions we can perform from here to change things, such as ethical shopping, political lobbyism, voluntary involvement or reducing our consumption (of goods, energy). We should be showing far more of what we can do and a lot less of what we can't avoid to happen, since this is counterproductive. And, last but not least, they should avoid creating a perverted picture of the truth. To illustrate what I mean and to finish with a thoughtful smile, another awesome brand new campaign, now on video: Africa for Norway, RADI_AID!!!

Read More

Incongruència fiscal

M'ha vingut la dèria de la incongrüència perquè resulta que en passar-me d'un treball precari a altre aquí a Londres no vaig tindre la deguda prudència d'informar-me'n de la normativa fiscal i laboral i no vaig demanar la meua P-45: aquí quan canvies de treball has de demanar un paper on l'empresa de la que eixes informa a l'empresa a la que vas (i de pas a la hisenda pública, que és el HM Revenue) de quant t'ha pagat i quant ha cotitzat per tu. Sense eixe paper (que de fet en són tres) la nova empresa cotitza per tu una barbaritat en un codi d'emergència, per si de cas abans de ser cambrer eres enginyer atòmic o director de multinacional i has de pagar una renda en simptonia. Cobrant el salari mínim, 6,08/hora, suporte una presió fiscal directa, tot comptat, del 34%. Mentres tant el candidat republicà Mitt Romney guanya tretze milions de dòlars a l'any i diu que paga una mitjana del 13%. I li ha de semblar molt perquè està boig per abaixar impostos.

Els estudiants de la U. de Suffolk fan uns dibuixets xulos

A Grècia un periodista va publicar les dades de 2000 evasors fiscals i la policia no va tardar en reaccionar i detindre... al periodista.

Good question, i  per què no???

Aquests conundrums fiscals i el fet que Amancio Ortega pague els impostos de Zara Online a Irlanda, mentres que dóna 20 milions d'euros a caritat a Espanya, arreplegant adhesions entusiastes de tota mena, m'ha fet meditar* darrerament sobre competència fiscal ("competència" en la seua acepció econòmica de "pegar-se d'òsties i abaixar preus" no en la  jurídica de "a qui li toca perseguir a este cràpula"). La possibilitat que la llei europea atorga d'establir-se en el país que vulgues mentres que cada país té una estructura fiscal diferent genera un incentiu monstruós (en les dues accepcions del terme) per a abaixar els impostos a aquells que poden decidir fàcilment on fixar el domicili fiscal, és a dir grans empreses i rics, mentres s'apujen compensatòriament per aquells que no podem, bàsicament treballadors assalariats, autònoms i xicotets empresaris. I, de bestreta, cada vegada més passar la grossa de la recaptació a impostos indirectes, que són els més regressius i els menys visibles -acontentant així a rics i miops, respectivament.

És impossible mantenir un sistema fiscal en franca competència a la baixa i alhora un estat del benestar mínimament funcional. Pareix obvi, però hi ha gent com Miguel Sebastián, autoanomenat socialista, que estan tan obcecats en demostrar que la funció redistributiva de l'Estat es fa per la via de la despesa i no de la recaptació (ojo, que en això tenen raó) que es despisten de que per la via de la recaptació es fa també molta redistribució... però al revès. És a dir, la recaptació fiscal arreu del món (també autoanomenat) desenvolupat és generalment regressiva, com demostren centenars d'estudis, i per tant redistribueix sí, però de les classes baixes i mitjanes cap a les classes altes. I encara hi ha qui, com Sebastian, defensen un tipus únic de l'IRPF -diguem un 25% o un 30%, tant fa- sigues ric como Amancio o pobre com jo. Això necessàriament faria el sistema més regressiu, encara que s'empenyen en que llevant deduccions i apujant el mínim exempt no seria tan greu. I per què defensen este canvi? Diuen que per facilitar l'enteniment i pagament de l'impost i evitar incentius perversos. [Un exemple: Fa uns anys estava de moda el problema de l'escala. Com l'IRPF es paga per trams -de tant a tant un 25%, de tant a tant un 30%...- hi havia un incentiu pervers en les fronteres d'un tram a l'altre per amagar certs ingressos i no passar de divisió. Això, no obstant, és més vell que les màquines d'escriure i els vídeos Beta i hui en dia l'estructura de l'impost directe podria i deuria ser contínua i creixent -és a dir tant guanyes, tant et toca i si guanyes mil més, un 0,1% més, o un 0,01% o el que corresponga, segons la pendent de la funció que s'haja decidit. Aquesta pendent seria el que s'hauria de debatre entre polítics i tècnics i el que la ciutadania hauria de poder votar. Per l'amor del nostre senyor, si les iaies tenen facebook i la declaració de la renda no la fa ningú, la fa un programeta d'ordinador via esborrany -la majoria- o programa PADRE.]

És veritat que és possible que un tipus únic no fora catastròfic, si va acompanyat de llevar les deduccions per vivenda i fons de pensions, però és evident que agreujaria la regressivitat del sistema. I a canvi de què? Els defensors del canvi tenen fe en que d'aquesta manera els evasors evadirien menys, supose que basant-se en que ara evadeixen perquè fan una mena de desobediència civil a la progressivitat. Jo sóc menys psicològicament profund en les meues anàlisis: Crec que evadeixen perquè poden. Perquè no se'ls persegueix ni castiga, i, encara més, perquè se'ls faciliten instruments per evadir. Eixe és EL problema fiscal.

Isak Andin, amo de Mango, explicant quant pensa pagar d'impostos enguany 

I a tot això als rics, plim. Ells no paguen impostos, i quan en paguen ho fan perquè volen i en la quantitat que els ve en gana. Els milionaris (d'euros) tenen paradissos fiscals en llocs exòtics i, a dia de hui, en tots els països moderns i xulos. En Espanya tenen les SICAV, aberració fiscal que paga un 1% d'impost de societats, però en el Regne Unit també tenen la City London Corporation que fa que les grans entitats financeres no només paguen el que els rote sinó que fins i tot queden fora de tot escrutini fiscal. Està Suïssa i els més coneguts paradissos fiscals off-shore, com les Cayman o l'Illa de Mann, que no està on Crist va perdre l'espardenya, sinó en Europa, corona britànica. Però tots els països més o menys juguen a salvar els rics de pagar. Les dades dels rics segons s'autodeclaren a Hacienda són de risa: el 10% més ric està a partir dels 39.000€ a l'any i l'1% més ric a partir dels 99.000€/any. Sí, clar. Òbviament tota la manta de mega-rics no paga IRPF o paga el que li ve en gana. Aleshores, en estos temps de crisi i mesures apocalíptiques, per què no està en el debat públic una bateria de mesures dràstiques per evitar esta monumental estafa fiscal? La meua resposta a això també és senzilla: Perquè no hi ha debat públic, és una paròdia enfocada pels mitjans on els interessa i cega cap el que no els interessa. Però altres defensen una altra resposta més tècnica: Perquè si intentàrem fer pagar més (o algo) els rics se n'anirien on no els tocaren la butxaca. És a dir, l'argument de la competència fiscal per a justificar que deixem que ens la claven. I tornem al problema matriu: No es pot tindre un sistema financer i comercial global i un sistema fiscal local en competència a la baixa amb altres. Què es pot fer? Jo, de moment, m'he apuntat a ATTAC. He descartat per ara matar rics perquè no tinc kalashnikov propi i sóc un poc gos.

* treballar de cambrer dóna temps per a pensar humilment**. Els maleïts insisteixen en que no puc llegir darrere de la barra, per si ve algun client. Ja veus tu, què tiquis-miquis. Si ve algún client, que s'espere, que jo llisc ràpid!

** els que em coneixeu de temps sabeu que sóc un tipo molt humil. El més humil del món diria jo!

Read More