21/03/2023

FRANCISCO LOUÇÃ

 .

QUER SABER DOS FANFARRÕES QUE NOS ENGANAM?



Três truques
mal contados na TAP

A TAP deu €110 milhões de lucro no verão passado, está a começar a poder pagar o adiantamento público e o Governo vai disso abdicar vendendo-a a uma empresa alemã, espanhola ou inglesa.

𝑉𝑎𝑖 𝑝𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑖́ 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑓𝑎𝑛𝑓𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑎 𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑎: 𝑝𝑜𝑟 “𝑜𝑏𝑠𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑎̃𝑜 𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑜𝑙𝑜́𝑔𝑖𝑐𝑎”, 𝑜 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑜 𝑛𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑜𝑢 𝑎 𝑇𝐴𝑃 𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑏𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑢 €𝟹 𝑚𝑖𝑙 𝑚𝑖𝑙ℎ𝑜̃𝑒𝑠 𝑑𝑜𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑠 𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑠, 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑜-𝑠𝑒 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑠𝑜́ 𝑜 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑑𝑜 𝑠𝑎𝑏𝑒 𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑟 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑎𝑠, 𝑎𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑐̧𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑎 𝑠𝑒𝑗𝑎 𝑎 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑎̃𝑜 𝑑𝑎 𝑛𝑜𝑣𝑎 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑧𝑎𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜. 𝑁𝑒𝑚 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑜 𝑛𝑎𝑑𝑎 𝑎̀ 𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑒𝑖𝑟𝑎 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜 𝑑𝑒 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎 𝑑𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑎 𝑣𝑖𝑟 𝑑𝑜𝑠 𝑚𝑒𝑠𝑚𝑜𝑠 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑓𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑗𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑚 𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑜 𝑎 𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑑𝑎𝑠 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑎𝑠 𝑛𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑜­𝑛𝑎𝑖𝑠 𝑓𝑜𝑖 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑑𝑎 𝑐𝑜𝑚 𝑢𝑚 𝑚𝑒𝑚𝑏𝑟𝑜 𝑑𝑜 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑒́ 𝐶𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑜 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑑𝑜 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎 𝐶ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑒̂𝑠 (𝑠𝑜́ 𝑜𝑠 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑠 𝑒́ 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑠𝑎𝑏𝑒𝑚 𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑟?) 𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑚 𝑓𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑚 𝑜 𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑗𝑜. 𝑀𝑎𝑠 𝑠𝑒 ℎ𝑎́ 𝑎𝑙𝑔𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑠𝑜́ 𝑝𝑜𝑑𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑟 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜 𝑒́ 𝑞𝑢𝑒 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑣𝑒 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑎, 𝑜𝑠 𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑜̃𝑒𝑠 𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑚 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑠, 𝑎𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑛ℎ𝑖𝑎𝑠 𝑎𝑒́𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠 𝑎𝑓𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑚-𝑠𝑒 𝑒, 𝑝𝑢́𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑠 𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑑𝑎𝑠, 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑚 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑎𝑑𝑎𝑠 𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑜 𝑑𝑖𝑛ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟𝑜 𝑝𝑢́𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑜 𝑒𝑚 𝑡𝑜𝑑𝑎 𝑎 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑒. 𝑆𝑒 𝑁𝑒𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛 𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑑𝑜 𝑛𝑎 𝑇𝐴𝑃, 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖́𝑎𝑚𝑜𝑠 𝑜𝑢𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑜 𝑀𝑎𝑟𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑠 𝑀𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑠 𝑒 𝑜𝑠 𝑙𝑖𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑠 𝑎 𝑟𝑒𝑧𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑚 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑜 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑜 𝑝𝑎𝑔𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒 𝑎 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑒? 𝑁𝑎̃𝑜 𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑚 𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎 𝑢𝑚𝑎 “𝑜𝑏𝑠𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑎̃𝑜 𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑜𝑙𝑜́𝑔𝑖𝑐𝑎” 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑔𝑒𝑟 𝑎 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑎 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑑𝑎? 𝑂𝑟𝑎, 𝑁𝑒𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛, 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑜 𝑒́ 𝑠𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑑𝑜, 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑢𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑎-𝑠𝑒 𝑎 𝑝𝑜̂𝑟 𝑑𝑖𝑛ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟𝑜 𝑛𝑎 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑎 𝑒, 𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑜, 𝑜 𝑠𝑒𝑢 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑜 𝑒𝑟𝑎 𝑎 𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑒̂𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑎, 𝑑𝑎 𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑓𝑜𝑖 𝑠𝑎𝑙𝑣𝑎 𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑎 𝑛𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑎𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜, 𝑎 𝑢́𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑎 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑔𝑒𝑟 𝑎 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑛ℎ𝑖𝑎 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑠 𝑑𝑎 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒̂𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑎 𝑑𝑜 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑑𝑜. 𝑃𝑜𝑟 𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑜 𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑟 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑖 𝑎 “𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑖𝑎” (“𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎”, 𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑎́ 𝑀𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑜) 𝑎 𝑑𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑟 𝑎 𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑎 𝑒 𝑎 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑒 𝑑𝑎 𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑎𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜 𝑒́ 𝑢𝑚 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎́𝑣𝑒𝑙. 𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑟 𝑜 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑎𝑑𝑜 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑟 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑎 𝑇𝐴𝑃 𝑝𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑎 𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑑𝑜 𝑠𝑒𝑚 𝑎 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜 𝑑𝑜 𝐸𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑑𝑜 𝑒́ 𝑢𝑚 𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑑𝑎́ 𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑎 𝑎𝑙ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑎. 𝐸𝑚 𝑡𝑜𝑑𝑜 𝑜 𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑜, 𝑒́ 𝑢𝑚 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑠𝑒 𝑓𝑎𝑐̧𝑎 𝑢𝑚 𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑜 𝑑𝑜𝑠 𝑡𝑟𝑒̂𝑠 𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑠 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎̃𝑜 𝑎 𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑏𝑟𝑎𝑟 𝑎 𝑇𝐴𝑃, 𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑜 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑜 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑎𝑟 𝑎𝑠 𝑖𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑔𝑎𝑐̧𝑜̃𝑒𝑠 𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑑𝑎𝑠 𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑒 𝑗𝑜𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙.

𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑖𝑟𝑜 𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑞𝑢𝑒: 𝐶𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑟𝑜

𝐴 ℎ𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑜́𝑟𝑖𝑎 𝑑𝑎 𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑎 𝑑𝑎 𝐺𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝑒́ 𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑙ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑎. 𝐴 𝑇𝐴𝑃 𝑝𝑎𝑔𝑜𝑢 €𝟹𝟷,𝟼 𝑚𝑖𝑙ℎ𝑜̃𝑒𝑠 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝑎 𝑎𝑑𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑖𝑟 𝑒, 𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒, 𝑎 𝑠𝑢𝑎 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜 𝑒́ 𝑓𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝑜𝑠 𝑎𝑒𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑜𝑠 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑠𝑎̃𝑜 𝑎 𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑑𝑎 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑎. 𝐸𝑚 𝟸𝟶𝟷𝟸, 𝑝𝑜𝑢𝑐𝑜 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑠 𝑑𝑜 𝑖𝑛𝑖́𝑐𝑖𝑜 𝑑𝑜 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑜 𝑃𝑆𝐷-𝐶𝐷𝑆, 𝑎 𝐺𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑖 𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑑𝑎 𝑎 𝐴𝑙𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑜 𝐶𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑟𝑜, 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝑜 𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑖𝑡𝑜 𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑜𝑢 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑎𝑠, 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑜-𝑠𝑒 𝑎 𝑝𝑎𝑔𝑎𝑟 €𝟹,𝟽 𝑚𝑖𝑙ℎ𝑜̃𝑒𝑠 𝑝𝑜𝑟 𝟻𝟶,𝟷% 𝑑𝑜 𝑛𝑒𝑔𝑜́𝑐𝑖𝑜, 𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑠𝑜́ 𝑓𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎 𝑠𝑒𝑖𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑜𝑠 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑠. 𝐸𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑜, 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑜 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑏𝑒𝑢 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑜̃𝑒𝑠 𝑑𝑒 𝑔𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎̃𝑜 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑎 €𝟽 𝑚𝑖𝑙ℎ𝑜̃𝑒𝑠 (𝑜𝑢, 𝑛𝑎 𝑠𝑢𝑎 𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑎̃𝑜, 𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑜), 𝑓𝑜𝑖 𝑑𝑒 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜 𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑑𝑜 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑧𝑎𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜. 𝑂𝑢, 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑜 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑠 𝑜 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑜 𝑑𝑜 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑜 𝑠𝑒𝑔𝑢𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒, 𝑓𝑜𝑖 𝑝𝑎𝑔𝑜 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑎𝑟 𝑎 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑎 𝑒 𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑎 𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑜𝑢 𝑐𝑜𝑚 𝑜 𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑜. 𝐴𝑜 𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑜 𝑑𝑜𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑜𝑠, 𝑎 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑎 𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑢-𝑠𝑒 𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑖𝑥𝑜𝑢 𝑑𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑔𝑎𝑟 𝑠𝑎𝑙𝑎́𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑠. 𝐼𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑎-𝑠𝑒 𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎̃𝑜 𝑑𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑟 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑜 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑑𝑜 𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑚𝑒𝑙ℎ𝑜𝑟? 𝑆𝑖𝑚, 𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑜𝑢 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑎𝑑𝑜 𝑛𝑜 𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑜 𝑑𝑎 𝐺𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝑞𝑢𝑒, 𝑐𝑜𝑚 𝑜 𝑑𝑖𝑛ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑒́ 𝑠𝑒𝑢, 𝑎 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑧𝑎𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜 𝑝𝑜𝑑𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑟 𝑢𝑚 𝑏𝑜𝑚 𝑛𝑒𝑔𝑜́𝑐𝑖𝑜 — 𝑎𝑡𝑒́ 𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑟.

𝑆𝑒𝑔𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑜 𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑞𝑢𝑒: 𝑁𝑒𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛

𝑂 𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑜 𝑑𝑎 𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑎 𝑑𝑎 𝑇𝐴𝑃 𝑎 𝑁𝑒𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛 𝑒 𝑃𝑒𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑎 𝑒́ 𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑎 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑠 𝑝𝑎𝑙𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑒. 𝐴 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑎 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑚 𝑓𝑜𝑖 𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑑𝑎 𝑛𝑜𝑠 𝑚𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑎̀𝑠 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑖𝑐̧𝑜̃𝑒𝑠 𝑒 𝑡𝑜𝑚𝑜𝑢 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑒 𝑑𝑎 𝑇𝐴𝑃 𝑑𝑜𝑖𝑠 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑠 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑠 𝑑𝑒 𝑜 𝑛𝑜𝑣𝑜 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑜 𝑃𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑠 𝐶𝑜𝑒𝑙ℎ𝑜 𝑐ℎ𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑎𝑟 𝑛𝑜 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑜. 𝑆𝑒 𝑎 𝐺𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑖 𝑎 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜 𝑑𝑜 𝑖𝑛𝑖́𝑐𝑖𝑜 𝑑𝑜 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑜 𝑑𝑎𝑠 𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑠, 𝑎 𝑑𝑎 𝑇𝐴𝑃 𝑓𝑜𝑖 𝑎 𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙, 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑟 𝑎 𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑎. 𝐹𝑜𝑖 𝑡𝑎𝑚𝑏𝑒́𝑚 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑎̃𝑜 𝑑𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑒 𝑔𝑎𝑏𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑜 𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑚 𝑎 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑎 𝑑𝑜𝑠 𝑛𝑒𝑔𝑜́𝑐𝑖𝑜𝑠: 𝑛𝑜 𝑚𝑒𝑠𝑚𝑜 𝑑𝑖𝑎 𝑒𝑚 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑖 𝑎𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑎𝑑𝑎 𝑎 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑧𝑎𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜 𝑒𝑚 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑙ℎ𝑜 𝑑𝑒 𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑠 𝑓𝑜𝑖 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑑𝑜 𝑜 𝑎𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑜 𝑑𝑒 𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑎. 𝑂 𝐸𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑑𝑜 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑏𝑖𝑎 𝑛𝑎𝑑𝑎, 𝑒𝑟𝑎 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑎 𝑎 𝑧𝑒𝑟𝑜, 𝑐𝑜𝑚 𝑜𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑣𝑜𝑠 𝑑𝑜𝑛𝑜𝑠 𝑎 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑚 𝑜 𝑐𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑜 𝑑𝑎 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑎𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜 𝑛𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑎́𝑟𝑖𝑎 — 𝑒 𝑒́ 𝑎𝑞𝑢𝑖 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑟𝑎́ 𝑜 𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑞𝑢𝑒.

𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑜 𝑓𝑜𝑖 𝑛𝑜𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑑𝑜, 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎́ 𝑎 𝑠𝑒𝑟 𝑖𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑔𝑎𝑑𝑜 𝑠𝑒 𝑁𝑒𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛 𝑔𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑢 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑚 𝑜 𝑑𝑖𝑛ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟𝑜 𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑑𝑜 𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑎 𝐴𝑖𝑟𝑏𝑢𝑠, 𝑎 𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑜 𝑑𝑎 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑎̃𝑜 𝑑𝑒 𝑎𝑏𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑟 𝑑𝑎 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝟷𝟸 𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑜̃𝑒𝑠 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝑎 𝑠𝑢𝑏𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑖𝑟 𝑝𝑜𝑟 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝟻𝟹, 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑚 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑧𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑠 𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑚𝑎 𝑑𝑜 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑐̧𝑜 𝑑𝑒 𝑚𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑎𝑑𝑜 𝑒𝑚 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑠 𝑑𝑒 𝟸𝟻𝟶 𝑚𝑖𝑙ℎ𝑜̃𝑒𝑠 𝑑𝑒 𝑑𝑜́𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑠. 𝑂𝑠 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑠 𝑑𝑎 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑑𝑎 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝑎 𝑇𝐴𝑃 𝑝𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑎̃𝑜 𝑠𝑒𝑟 𝑑𝑒 𝟺𝟺𝟺 𝑚𝑖𝑙ℎ𝑜̃𝑒𝑠. 𝑂𝑢 𝑠𝑒𝑗𝑎, 𝑎 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑧𝑎𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜 𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑎́ 𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑢𝑧𝑖𝑑𝑎 𝑝𝑜𝑟 𝑢𝑚 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑎́𝑟𝑖𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑜𝑢 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑒 𝑔𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑑𝑎 𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑜 𝑑𝑒 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑟 𝑢𝑚 𝑏𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑜 𝑛𝑎 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑛ℎ𝑖𝑎. 𝐼𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑎-𝑠𝑒 𝑑𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑟, 𝑜 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑑𝑜 𝑒́ 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑚?

𝑇𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑖𝑟𝑜 𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑞𝑢𝑒: 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑧𝑎𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜

𝐶ℎ𝑒𝑔𝑎-𝑠𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑠 𝑑𝑒 𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑜 𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑜 𝑎𝑜 𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑖𝑟𝑜 𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑒𝑚 𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑠𝑜 𝑛𝑎 𝑇𝐴𝑃, 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑟 𝑜 𝑐𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑜 𝑑𝑒 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜 𝑑𝑎𝑠 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑠 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑖𝑠 𝑛𝑜 𝑛𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑜 𝑝𝑎𝑖́𝑠 (𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑜 𝑎 𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑎 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑧𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑒 𝑑𝑜 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑑𝑎 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑎𝑜 𝐸𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑑𝑜 𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑒̂𝑠). 𝑂 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑜 𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑜𝑢 𝑜𝑠 €𝟹 𝑚𝑖𝑙 𝑚𝑖𝑙ℎ𝑜̃𝑒𝑠, 𝑎 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑎 𝑠𝑜𝑏𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑢, 𝑎𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑜𝑢 𝑢𝑚 𝑑𝑢𝑟𝑜 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑜 𝑑𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜 𝑑𝑒 𝑠𝑎𝑙𝑎́𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑠, 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑢𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑜𝑢 𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑜 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑒 𝑑𝑜 𝑠𝑒𝑢 𝑚𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑎𝑑𝑜, 𝑎 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑎̃𝑜 𝐸𝑢𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑖𝑎 𝑜𝑏𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑜𝑢-𝑎 𝑎 𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑧𝑖𝑟-𝑠𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑟 𝑎 𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑎 𝑎𝑜𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑠 𝑒 𝑒𝑖𝑠 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑣𝑎𝑖 𝑠𝑒𝑟 𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑑𝑎. 𝐷𝑒 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜, 𝑒́ 𝑎𝑞𝑢𝑖 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎́ 𝑜 𝑟𝑜𝑚𝑏𝑜 𝑛𝑎𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑠 𝑝𝑢́𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑠, 𝑎𝑠 𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑠 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑎𝑚 𝑠𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑠: 𝑎 𝑇𝐴𝑃 𝑑𝑒𝑢 €𝟷𝟷𝟶 𝑚𝑖𝑙ℎ𝑜̃𝑒𝑠 𝑑𝑒 𝑙𝑢𝑐𝑟𝑜 𝑛𝑜 𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎̃𝑜 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑎𝑑𝑜, 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎́ 𝑎𝑔𝑜𝑟𝑎 𝑎 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑐̧𝑎𝑟 𝑎 𝑝𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑎𝑔𝑎𝑟 𝑜 𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑜 𝑝𝑢́𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑜 𝑒 𝑜 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑜 𝑣𝑎𝑖 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑜 𝑎𝑏𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑟 𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑜-𝑎 𝑎 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑎 𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑎̃, 𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑛ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑎 𝑜𝑢 𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑎. 𝑆𝑒 𝑠𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑟, 𝑒́ 𝑎𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑎 𝑚𝑒𝑠𝑚𝑎 𝑑𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒: 𝑜 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑑𝑜 𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑚𝑒𝑙ℎ𝑜𝑟.

𝑁𝑜 𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑜 𝑑𝑎𝑠 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑎𝑠 𝑑𝑒 𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑎𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜, 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎 𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜 𝑒́ 𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑜 𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑜𝑠 𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑠𝑎 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑠 𝑑𝑒 𝐶𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑟𝑜 𝑒 𝑁𝑒𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛. 𝐽𝑎́ 𝑙𝑎́ 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑚 𝑒 𝑠𝑜́ 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑚 𝑐𝑜𝑚 𝑑𝑖𝑛ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑒𝑟𝑎 𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑜 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑒 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑟𝑎 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑎. 𝐴𝑓𝑖𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑟 𝑎𝑔𝑜𝑟𝑎, 𝑐𝑜𝑚 𝑜 𝑝𝑒𝑠𝑜 𝑑𝑎 𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒̂𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑎, 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑒𝑟𝑎 𝑚𝑒𝑙ℎ𝑜𝑟 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑚 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑑𝑜 𝑒́ 𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑜 𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑜𝑠 𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑜𝑠𝑜. 𝑃𝑜𝑟 𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑜 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑎𝑐𝑢𝑠𝑜 𝑜𝑠 𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑟𝑜-𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑠 𝑑𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑚 𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑜𝑙𝑜́𝑔𝑖𝑐𝑜𝑠. 𝐿𝑒𝑚𝑏𝑟𝑜 𝑠𝑜́ 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑗𝑎́ 𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑚 𝑎 𝑠𝑢𝑎 𝑜𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑒 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑎𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎́-𝑙𝑜𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑜 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑠, 𝑚𝑒𝑠𝑚𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑔𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑠 𝑒 𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑔𝑜𝑠 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑠 𝑜𝑢 𝑓𝑢𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑜𝑠, 𝑠𝑜́ 𝑒́ 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑖́𝑣𝑒𝑙 𝑡𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑜 𝑜𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑠 𝑝𝑜𝑟 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑢́𝑝𝑖𝑑𝑜𝑠.

𝑁𝑜 𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑜 𝑑𝑎𝑠 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑎𝑠 𝑑𝑒 𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑎𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜, 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎 𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜 𝑒́ 𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑜 𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑜𝑠 𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑠𝑎 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑠 𝑑𝑒 𝐶𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑟𝑜 𝑒 𝑁𝑒𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛. 𝐽𝑎́ 𝑙𝑎́ 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑚 𝑒 𝑠𝑜́ 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑚 𝑐𝑜𝑚 𝑑𝑖𝑛ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑒𝑟𝑎 𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑜 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑒 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑟𝑎 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑎. 𝐴𝑓𝑖𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑟 𝑎𝑔𝑜𝑟𝑎, 𝑐𝑜𝑚 𝑜 𝑝𝑒𝑠𝑜 𝑑𝑎 𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒̂𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑎, 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑒𝑟𝑎 𝑚𝑒𝑙ℎ𝑜𝑟 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑚 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑑𝑜 𝑒́ 𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑜 𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑜𝑠 𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑜𝑠𝑜. 𝑃𝑜𝑟 𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑜 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑎𝑐𝑢𝑠𝑜 𝑜𝑠 𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑟𝑜-𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑠 𝑑𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑚 𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑜𝑙𝑜́𝑔𝑖𝑐𝑜𝑠. 𝐿𝑒𝑚𝑏𝑟𝑜 𝑠𝑜́ 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑗𝑎́ 𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑚 𝑎 𝑠𝑢𝑎 𝑜𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑒 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑎𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎́-𝑙𝑜𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑜 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑠, 𝑚𝑒𝑠𝑚𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑔𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑠 𝑒 𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑔𝑜𝑠 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑠 𝑜𝑢 𝑓𝑢𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑜𝑠, 𝑠𝑜́ 𝑒́ 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑖́𝑣𝑒𝑙 𝑡𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑜 𝑜𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑠 𝑝𝑜𝑟 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑢́𝑝𝑖𝑑𝑜𝑠.
. * Professor universitário, activista do BE
. IN "EXPRESSO"- 10/03/23 .

Sem comentários:

Enviar um comentário