VICENTE FERREIRA

 .

Voltar à página da austeridade:

o regresso dos mitos sobre

a economia portuguesa

A última crise não resultou do despesismo do Estado, do excesso de dívida pública ou do crescimento desmesurado dos salários. Não será a redução da dívida pública que o Governo tem feito que vai proteger o país da próxima crise. Entretanto, dizem-nos que os salários e as pensões têm de sofrer cortes reais para não alimentar uma suposta espiral inflacionista.

“𝖱𝖾𝗌𝗉𝗈𝗇𝗌𝖺𝖻𝗂𝗅𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾” 𝖾 “𝗉𝗋𝗎𝖽𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺” 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝖺𝗅𝖺𝗏𝗋𝖺𝗌 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗎𝗍𝗂𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗋𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗋 𝗈 𝖮𝗋𝖼̧𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝖤𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝟤𝟢𝟤𝟥. 𝖭𝗎𝗆 𝖺𝗇𝗈 𝖾𝗆 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺𝗌 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗌 𝖺𝗎𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝗌𝗎𝖻𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗅𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗏𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝖿𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈, 𝗈 𝖦𝗈𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗇𝗈 𝖺𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈𝗎 𝗎𝗆 𝖮𝗋𝖼̧𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖼𝗎𝗃𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗈𝗋𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖾́ 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋 𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖾𝗌𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝖽𝗎𝗓𝗂𝗋 𝖺 𝖽𝗂́𝗏𝗂𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖿𝖺𝗋𝖺́ 𝖽𝖾 𝖯𝗈𝗋𝗍𝗎𝗀𝖺𝗅 𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗂́𝗌 𝖽𝗈 𝗆𝗎𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗈𝗋 𝗋𝖾𝖽𝗎𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖽𝗂́𝗏𝗂𝖽𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖽𝖾 𝗈 𝗂𝗇𝗂́𝖼𝗂𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗆𝗂𝖺. 𝖠𝗅𝖾́𝗆 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖺𝗎𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖺𝗅𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝖾 𝗉𝖾𝗇𝗌𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖺𝖻𝖺𝗂𝗑𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝖿𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖾𝗋𝖺𝖽𝖺, 𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖾𝗌𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝗆𝖾𝖽𝗂𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝖺̀ 𝗂𝗇𝖿𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗋𝖺́ 𝖼𝗂𝗇𝖼𝗈 𝗏𝖾𝗓𝖾𝗌 𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗈𝗋 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝖺𝗇𝗈.

𝖮 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝖺𝗎𝗌𝖺𝗋 𝗌𝗎𝗋𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖺 𝖾́ 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝖼𝗎𝗋𝗌𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝖦𝗈𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗇𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗃𝗎𝗌𝗍𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗋 𝖺𝗌 𝗈𝗉𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝗈𝗋𝖼̧𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗌𝖾 𝗍𝖾𝗆 𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖾𝗆𝖾𝗅𝗁𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖾𝗆 𝗅𝖺𝗋𝗀𝖺 𝗆𝖾𝖽𝗂𝖽𝖺 𝖺𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝖽𝗂𝗋𝖾𝗂𝗍𝖺 𝗎𝗍𝗂𝗅𝗂𝗓𝗈𝗎 𝗁𝖺́ 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝖾́𝖼𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝖿𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗀𝗋𝖺𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖺𝗃𝗎𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖳𝗋𝗈𝗂𝗄𝖺. 𝖥𝖾𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖬𝖾𝖽𝗂𝗇𝖺, 𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗈 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝖥𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗇𝖼̧𝖺𝗌, 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝖾𝗇𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝖿𝗈𝗋𝖼̧𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝖽𝗎𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖽𝗂́𝗏𝗂𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖾́ 𝗂𝗇𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗉𝖾𝗇𝗌𝖺́𝗏𝖾𝗅 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗍𝖾𝗀𝖾𝗋 𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗂́𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗌𝖾𝗌: “𝖭𝖺̃𝗈 𝖿𝗈𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖺𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗅𝖾𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖽𝗂𝗓𝗂𝖺𝗆 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝖽𝗂́𝗏𝗂𝖽𝖺 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖺 𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝗂́𝖺𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖾𝗑𝗉𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗂𝗋 𝗈 𝖽𝖾́𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖾 […] 𝖲𝖾 𝗁𝖺́ 𝖺𝗅𝗀𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾́ 𝗁𝗈𝗃𝖾 𝗎𝗆 𝖿𝖺𝗍𝗈𝗋 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖿𝗂𝖺𝗇𝖼̧𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖾𝗇𝖿𝗋𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗋𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝗈 𝖺𝗇𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝟤𝟢𝟤𝟥 𝖾́ 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗂𝗌𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝖽𝗎𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖽𝗂́𝗏𝗂𝖽𝖺”.

𝖳𝖺𝗆𝖻𝖾́𝗆 𝖺 𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖾́ 𝗂𝗇𝖾𝗏𝗂𝗍𝖺́𝗏𝖾𝗅 𝗏𝗈𝗅𝗍𝗈𝗎 𝖺 𝖿𝖺𝗓𝖾𝗋 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝗈 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝖼𝗎𝗋𝗌𝗈. 𝖣𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝗏𝖾𝗓, 𝖾́-𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝖺𝗅𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝖾 𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝖾𝗇𝗌𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝗍𝖾̂𝗆 𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝗈𝖿𝗋𝖾𝗋 𝖼𝗈𝗋𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝗋𝖾𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗌𝗎𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗉𝗂𝗋𝖺𝗅 𝗂𝗇𝖿𝗅𝖺𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗍𝖾𝗆 𝗆𝗎𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗎𝖼𝖺 𝖿𝗎𝗇𝖽𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈, 𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗍𝖾𝗈́𝗋𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗂́𝗋𝗂𝖼𝖺. 𝖣𝖾𝗉𝗈𝗂𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗍𝖾𝗋 𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗇𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖺𝖼𝗈𝗋𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗂𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 “𝗏𝗈𝗅𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝖺 𝗉𝖺́𝗀𝗂𝗇𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝖺𝗎𝗌𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾”, 𝖠𝗇𝗍𝗈́𝗇𝗂𝗈 𝖢𝗈𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖾𝖼𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗋 𝗏𝗈𝗅𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝖺̀ 𝗉𝖺́𝗀𝗂𝗇𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝖺𝗎𝗌𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾. 𝖯𝗈𝗋 𝗂𝗌𝗌𝗈, 𝗏𝖺𝗅𝖾 𝖺 𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺 𝗏𝗈𝗅𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗎𝗂𝗋 𝗈𝗌 𝗆𝗂𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝖾𝗆 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝖽𝗂𝗋𝖾𝗂𝗍𝖺 𝗌𝖾 𝖻𝖺𝗌𝖾𝗈𝗎 𝖽𝗎𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖺 𝗎́𝗅𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗌𝖾.

𝖬𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝟣: 𝖺 𝖽𝗂́𝗏𝗂𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖼𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖼𝖾𝗎 𝖽𝖾𝗆𝖺𝗌𝗂𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖺 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗌𝖾

𝖮 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈 𝗆𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝗂𝖿𝗎𝗇𝖽𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝖻𝗈𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗈𝗆𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌, 𝖺𝗈 𝖼𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝗈 𝖾 𝖺̀ 𝖽𝗂𝗋𝖾𝗂𝗍𝖺, 𝖿𝗈𝗂 𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗌𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝖿𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗀𝗂𝗎 𝖺 𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗈𝗆𝗂𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝗎𝗀𝗎𝖾𝗌𝖺 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖾 𝟤𝟢𝟣𝟢 𝖾 𝟤𝟢𝟣𝟤 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗎𝗅𝗍𝗈𝗎 𝖽𝗈 𝖼𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗎𝗋𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖽𝗂́𝗏𝗂𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺. 𝖮 𝖼𝗈𝗋𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝖺𝗌 “𝗀𝗈𝗋𝖽𝗎𝗋𝖺𝗌” 𝖽𝗈 𝖤𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖾 𝗈 𝖿𝗂𝗆 𝖽𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖾𝗌𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝗍𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗋𝖺𝗆-𝗌𝖾 𝖻𝖺𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗂𝗋𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝗈 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝖼𝗎𝗋𝗌𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝖯𝖲𝖣 𝗏𝖾𝗇𝖼𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝖺𝗌 𝖾𝗅𝖾𝗂𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌.

.

𝖲𝗈́ 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝖺𝗅𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖿𝗈𝗂 𝖻𝖺𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝗂𝖿𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾. 𝖤𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖾 𝟤𝟢𝟢𝟣 𝖾 𝟤𝟢𝟢𝟪, 𝖺 𝖽𝗂́𝗏𝗂𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝗎𝗀𝗎𝖾𝗌𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗈𝗎 𝖽𝖾 𝟧𝟩,𝟦% 𝖽𝗈 𝖯𝖨𝖡 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝟩𝟧,𝟨%, 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝖾 𝖺𝖿𝖺𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝗆𝗎𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗆𝖾́𝖽𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝖹𝗈𝗇𝖺 𝖤𝗎𝗋𝗈. 𝖤𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝖺𝖿𝖺𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗌𝗈́ 𝗌𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗎 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝗈 𝗂𝗆𝗉𝖺𝖼𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗌𝖾 𝖿𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗇𝖼𝖾𝗂𝗋𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝟤𝟢𝟢𝟩-𝟢𝟪, 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖺𝗌 𝗆𝖾𝖽𝗂𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝖺̀ 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗌𝖾 – 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝖢𝗈𝗆𝗂𝗌𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝖤𝗎𝗋𝗈𝗉𝖾𝗂𝖺 𝖺𝗉𝗈𝗂𝗈𝗎 𝗂𝗇𝗂𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗅𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 – 𝖾, 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾𝗍𝗎𝖽𝗈, 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖺 𝖺𝗎𝗌𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾, 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺𝗀𝗋𝖺𝗏𝗈𝗎 𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾 𝖿𝖾𝗓 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺𝗋 𝖺 𝖽𝗂́𝗏𝗂𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝟣𝟥𝟤,𝟦% 𝖽𝗈 𝖯𝖨𝖡 𝖾𝗆 𝟤𝟢𝟣𝟦.

𝖬𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝟤: 𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝖺𝗅𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖼𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝖽𝖾𝗆𝖺𝗌𝗂𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖺 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗌𝖾

𝖮 𝗌𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝗆𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗅𝖾𝗀𝗂𝗍𝗂𝗆𝗈𝗎 𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗍𝖾́𝗀𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖺𝗎𝗌𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝗍𝖾𝗏𝖾 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝖻𝖺𝗌𝖾 𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗎𝗌𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝗎𝗇𝗂𝗍𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝗈 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖻𝖺𝗅𝗁𝗈 (𝖢𝖴𝖳). 𝖮𝗌 𝖢𝖴𝖳 𝖼𝗈𝗋𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗉𝗈𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗆 𝖺𝗈 𝗋𝖺́𝖼𝗂𝗈 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖾 𝖺𝗌 𝗋𝖾𝗆𝗎𝗇𝖾𝗋𝖺𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖻𝖺𝗅𝗁𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗌 (𝗌𝖺𝗅𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝗈𝗌, 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝗂𝖻𝗎𝗂𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖺 𝗌𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗋𝖺𝗇𝖼̧𝖺 𝗌𝗈𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗅, 𝖾𝗍𝖼.) 𝖾 𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖽𝗎𝗍𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝖺𝗅 (𝖯𝖨𝖡). 𝖠 𝗍𝖾𝗌𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗎𝗂́𝖽𝖺 𝖿𝗈𝗂 𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗎𝗌𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝗎𝗇𝗂𝗍𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝗈 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖻𝖺𝗅𝗁𝗈 𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖺𝗆 𝖼𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗆𝖺𝗌𝗂𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖾𝗆 𝗉𝖺𝗂́𝗌𝖾𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝖯𝗈𝗋𝗍𝗎𝗀𝖺𝗅, 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗂𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗎 𝗇𝖺 𝖠𝗅𝖾𝗆𝖺𝗇𝗁𝖺. 𝖮 𝗌𝗎𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝖾𝗑𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝖺𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖺𝗅𝖾𝗆𝖺̃𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗏𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗀𝗇𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗈𝗆𝗂𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖿𝖾́𝗋𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗌, 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖺𝗆 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝖽𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝖾𝗍𝗂𝗍𝗂𝗏𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝖺𝗎𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗎𝗌𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝗈 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖻𝖺𝗅𝗁𝗈. “𝖵𝗂𝗏𝖾𝗋 𝖺𝖼𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗌𝗂𝖻𝗂𝗅𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾𝗌” 𝖿𝗈𝗂 𝖺 𝖿𝗋𝖺𝗌𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖾 𝗍𝗈𝗋𝗇𝗈𝗎 𝖼𝖾́𝗅𝖾𝖻𝗋𝖾.

𝖤𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝖺𝗋𝗀𝗎𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖻𝖾́𝗆 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾𝗏𝗂𝗏𝖾 𝖺𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖿𝗋𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝗈𝗌 𝖿𝖺𝖼𝗍𝗈𝗌. 𝖮𝗌 𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗈𝗆𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝖩𝖾𝗌𝗎𝗌 𝖥𝖾𝗅𝗂𝗉𝖾 𝖾 𝖴𝗍𝗌𝖺𝗏 𝖪𝗎𝗆𝖺𝗋 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗆𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝖺 𝗍𝖾𝗌𝖾 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗎𝗌𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝗎𝗇𝗂𝗍𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝗈 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖻𝖺𝗅𝗁𝗈 𝗇𝗎𝗆 𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗂𝗀𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖾 𝗍𝗈𝗋𝗇𝗈𝗎 𝖼𝖾́𝗅𝖾𝖻𝗋𝖾. 𝖣𝖾 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗎𝗆𝗂𝖽𝖺, 𝖺 𝖿𝗈́𝗋𝗆𝗎𝗅𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝖺́𝗅𝖼𝗎𝗅𝗈 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖢𝖴𝖳 𝖾́ 𝖾𝗊𝗎𝗂𝗏𝖺𝗅𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖺̀ 𝗆𝗎𝗅𝗍𝗂𝗉𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝖾𝗌𝗈 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝖺𝗅𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝗇𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝗇𝖽𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗇𝖺𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗎𝗆 𝖽𝖾𝖿𝗅𝖺𝗍𝗈𝗋 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝖼̧𝗈𝗌; 𝗅𝗈𝗀𝗈, 𝗈𝗌 𝖢𝖴𝖳 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗆 𝖼𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖼𝖾𝗋 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗏𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝗈 𝖺𝗎𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝖾𝗌𝗈 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝖺𝗅𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝗇𝗈 𝖯𝖨𝖡 𝗈𝗎 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝗈 𝖺𝗎𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝖿𝗅𝖺𝗍𝗈𝗋 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝖼̧𝗈𝗌. 𝖴𝗌𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖺 𝖢𝗈𝗆𝗂𝗌𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝖤𝗎𝗋𝗈𝗉𝖾𝗂𝖺, 𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝗈𝗂𝗌 𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗈𝗆𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝗆𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝗊𝗎𝖾, 𝖾𝗆 𝖯𝗈𝗋𝗍𝗎𝗀𝖺𝗅, 𝗈𝗌 𝖢𝖴𝖳 𝖼𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖼𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗏𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝖿𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝖺𝗅𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝗈𝗌. 𝖭𝖺 𝗏𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾, 𝖺 𝖿𝖺𝗍𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝖺𝗅𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝗇𝗈 𝖯𝖨𝖡 𝗍𝖾𝗆 𝗏𝗂𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖺 𝖼𝖺𝗂𝗋 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖽𝖾 𝖺 𝖺𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝖺𝗈 𝖾𝗎𝗋𝗈.

𝖮 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾́ 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖾 𝗉𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗈𝗎 𝗋𝖾𝖺𝗅𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾?

𝖮 𝗏𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖻𝗅𝖾𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗈𝗆𝗂𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝗎𝗀𝗎𝖾𝗌𝖺 𝖿𝗈𝗂 𝗈 𝖼𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝖾𝗇𝖽𝗂𝗏𝗂𝖽𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖾𝗑𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗇𝗈, 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗈𝗋𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗋𝗂𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗏𝖺𝖽𝗈, 𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝖺 𝖺𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝖺𝗈 𝖾𝗎𝗋𝗈. 𝖢𝗈𝗆 𝖺 𝖺𝖽𝗈𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗆𝗈𝖾𝖽𝖺 𝗎́𝗇𝗂𝖼𝖺, 𝖺𝗌 𝗍𝖺𝗑𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗃𝗎𝗋𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖽𝗂́𝗏𝗂𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖻𝖺𝗂𝗑𝖺𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝗌𝗂𝗀𝗇𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈𝗌 𝗂𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗂𝖽𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝗉𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖺𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗋 𝗈𝗌 𝗍𝗂́𝗍𝗎𝗅𝗈𝗌 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗌𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗋𝗈𝗌. 𝖠 𝗋𝖾𝖽𝗎𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗃𝗎𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖺 𝖽𝗂́𝗏𝗂𝖽𝖺 𝖾 𝖺 𝗅𝗂𝖻𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗆𝗈𝗏𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝖺𝗉𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗈𝗋𝗂𝗀𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝖿𝗅𝗎𝗑𝗈𝗌 𝖿𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗇𝖼𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖻𝖺𝗇𝖼𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝗈 𝖼𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝗈 (𝖠𝗅𝖾𝗆𝖺𝗇𝗁𝖺, 𝖥𝗋𝖺𝗇𝖼̧𝖺) 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖺 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖿𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖺 (𝖯𝗈𝗋𝗍𝗎𝗀𝖺𝗅, 𝖤𝗌𝗉𝖺𝗇𝗁𝖺, 𝖦𝗋𝖾́𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖾 𝖨𝗍𝖺́𝗅𝗂𝖺), 𝗈𝗇𝖽𝖾 𝖺 𝖾𝗑𝗉𝖾𝖼𝗍𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝗍𝗈𝗋𝗇𝗈 𝖾𝗋𝖺 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗈𝗋, 𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗊𝗎𝗂𝗅𝗂́𝖻𝗋𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖾 𝗉𝖺𝗂́𝗌𝖾𝗌 𝖼𝗋𝖾𝖽𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝖾𝖽𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝖾 𝗍𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝗈𝗌 𝗎́𝗅𝗍𝗂𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗏𝗎𝗅𝗇𝖾𝗋𝖺́𝗏𝖾𝗂𝗌 𝖺 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗌𝖾𝗌.

𝖮 𝖿𝗋𝖺𝖼𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗆𝗉𝖾𝗇𝗁𝗈 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝖾𝗑𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝖺𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝗎𝗀𝗎𝖾𝗌𝖺𝗌 𝗍𝖾𝗆 𝗉𝗈𝗎𝖼𝗈 𝖺 𝗏𝖾𝗋 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗎𝗌𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝗈 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖻𝖺𝗅𝗁𝗈 𝖾 𝖻𝖺𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖺 𝗏𝖾𝗋 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝖺𝗌𝗉𝖾𝗍𝗈𝗌, 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝖺 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝖢𝗁𝗂𝗇𝖺 𝗇𝖺 𝖮𝗋𝗀𝖺𝗇𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖬𝗎𝗇𝖽𝗂𝖺𝗅 𝖽𝗈 𝖢𝗈𝗆𝖾́𝗋𝖼𝗂𝗈 𝗈𝗎 𝖺 𝖺𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝖺𝗂́𝗌𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖫𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝖺̀ 𝖴𝗇𝗂𝖺̃𝗈 𝖤𝗎𝗋𝗈𝗉𝖾𝗂𝖺, 𝖼𝗎𝗃𝖺𝗌 𝖾𝗑𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝖺𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝖾𝗍𝗂𝖺𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝗎𝗀𝗎𝖾𝗌𝖺𝗌 𝖾 𝖼𝗎𝗃𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝖺𝗅𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝗆𝗎𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝗂𝗇𝖿𝖾𝗋𝗂𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗌.

.

𝖠𝗈 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝗍𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗈, 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗋𝗂𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖺 𝗍𝖾𝗌𝖾 𝖽𝗈 “𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖾𝗌𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈” 𝖽𝗈 𝖤𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈, 𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝖻𝗋𝖺 𝖺𝖼𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗎𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝖽𝗈 𝗂𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗉𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝗈 𝖾 𝖽𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖾𝗌𝖺 𝖾𝗆 𝖺́𝗋𝖾𝖺𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝖺 𝖾𝖽𝗎𝖼𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈, 𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗀𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗈𝗎 𝗈𝗌 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗌𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝖺𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗌𝗈𝗎 𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗏𝗈𝗅𝗏𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗂́𝗌. 𝖯𝗈𝗋𝗍𝗎𝗀𝖺𝗅 𝖿𝗈𝗂 𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗂́𝗌 𝖽𝖺 𝖴𝗇𝗂𝖺̃𝗈 𝖤𝗎𝗋𝗈𝗉𝖾𝗂𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗋𝖾𝖽𝗎𝗓𝗂𝗎 𝗈 𝗂𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗉𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝗈 𝖾𝗆 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝖼𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗀𝖾𝗆 𝖽𝗈 𝖯𝖨𝖡 𝖾 𝗈 𝖤𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗋𝗍𝗈𝗎 𝖾𝗆 𝗏𝗂𝗋𝗍𝗎𝖺𝗅𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗍𝗈𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖾𝗌𝖺𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝖢𝗈𝗆𝗂𝗌𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝖤𝗎𝗋𝗈𝗉𝖾𝗂𝖺 𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 “𝖺𝗆𝗂𝗀𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝗈 𝖼𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈”, 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝗈 𝗂𝗆𝗉𝖺𝖼𝗍𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗂𝗍𝗂𝗏𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗍𝖾̂𝗆 𝗇𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖽𝗎𝗍𝗂𝗏𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖺 𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗈𝗆𝗂𝖺.

𝖱𝖾𝗀𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝖺𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖺𝖽𝗈

𝖠𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝖿𝗈𝗂 𝖽𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝗁𝖺́ 𝖽𝖾𝗓 𝖺𝗇𝗈𝗌, 𝖺 𝗎́𝗅𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗌𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗎𝗅𝗍𝗈𝗎 𝖽𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖾𝗌𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝖤𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈, 𝖽𝗈 𝖾𝗑𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝗂́𝗏𝗂𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝗈𝗎 𝖽𝗈 𝖼𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗎𝗋𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝖺𝗅𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝗈𝗌. 𝖣𝖺 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝖺 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺, 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗋𝖺́ 𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝖽𝗎𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖽𝗂́𝗏𝗂𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝖺𝗍𝗎𝖺𝗅 𝖦𝗈𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗇𝗈 𝗍𝖾𝗆 𝗅𝖾𝗏𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖺 𝖼𝖺𝖻𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗏𝖺𝗂 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗍𝖾𝗀𝖾𝗋 𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗂́𝗌 𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈́𝗑𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗌𝖾, 𝖼𝗎𝗃𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗋𝗈𝗅𝖺𝗋 𝖽𝖾𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾𝗍𝗎𝖽𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝖼𝗂𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝖡𝖺𝗇𝖼𝗈 𝖢𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗅 𝖤𝗎𝗋𝗈𝗉𝖾𝗎 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾 𝗌𝖾 𝗌𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝖾 𝗈𝗎 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗍𝖾𝗀𝖾𝗋 𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝖺𝗂́𝗌𝖾𝗌 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖿𝖾́𝗋𝗂𝖼𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖾𝖼𝗎𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗆𝖾𝗋𝖼𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌.

𝖭𝗈 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈, 𝗇𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝗇𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗍𝖾́𝗀𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝗈 𝖦𝗈𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗇𝗈 𝗂𝗇𝖽𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗆𝗎𝖽𝖺𝗇𝖼̧𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗈𝗋𝗂𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖿𝖺𝖼𝖾 𝖺𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖺𝖽𝗈. 𝖤𝗆 𝗇𝗈𝗆𝖾 𝖽𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝖽𝗎𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖽𝗂́𝗏𝗂𝖽𝖺, 𝗈 𝗂𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗉𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗎𝖺 𝖺 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝗇𝖾𝗀𝗅𝗂𝗀𝖾𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖾 𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗋𝗍𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝖺𝗅 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗋𝖾𝗇𝖽𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈𝗌, 𝗍𝖺𝗅𝗏𝖾𝗓 𝖿𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗇𝖼̧𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝗂𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖾 𝖺𝗌 𝖾𝗑𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝖺𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝖾𝗇𝗌𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖾𝗆, 𝖺𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖾𝖼𝖾 𝗇𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖺𝗅𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖺 𝖾𝗆 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗎𝗆𝗈 𝖽𝗈𝗆𝖾́𝗌𝗍𝗂𝖼𝗈 𝖾 𝗈 𝗂𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗃𝖺́ 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺̃𝗈 𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗎𝖺𝗋, 𝖽𝖾 𝖺𝖼𝗈𝗋𝖽𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝗈 𝖨𝖭𝖤. 𝖢𝗈𝗆𝗈, 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗃𝗎𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗈𝗆𝗂𝖺, 𝗈𝗌 𝗀𝖺𝗌𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗎𝗇𝗌 𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝗇𝖽𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝗈𝗌, 𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝖻𝗋𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖼𝗎𝗋𝖺 𝗍𝖾𝗋𝖺́ 𝖾𝖿𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝗇𝖾𝗀𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝗈𝗌 𝗇𝖺 𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗈́𝗆𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖾 𝗇𝗈 𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗀𝗈 𝖾 𝖺𝗎𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺 𝗈 𝗋𝗂𝗌𝖼𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺̃𝗈. 𝖤́ 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖾𝗑𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗂́𝗌 𝗃𝖺́ 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗁𝖾𝖼𝖾 𝖻𝖾𝗆.

* Economista, licenciado pelo ISEG e mestre pela SOAS, no Reino Unido

IN "SETENTA E QUATRO" - 03/11/22 .