Um estudo da Oxford University (Flyvbjerg, Bent et al. The Oxford Olympics Study 2016: Cost and Cost Overrun at the Games) mostra que o custo real para se fazer as olimpiadas é de 5,2 bilhões de dólares em média. O custo para os jogos de inverno é de 3,1 bilhões em média. O estudo mostrou que os jogos mais caros foram Londres (15 bilhões, em 2012) e Sochi (21,9 bilhões, em 2014). A série analisada pelos pesquisadores compreende o período entre 1960 a 2016 e abrange somente os custos relacionados ao desporto. Assim, este custo médio é maior na prática. Um segundo aspecto do estudo é a análise do cost overrun. Conforme já comentamos aqui, o conceito de cost overrun refere-se ao incremento do custo em relação ao orçamento. Isto já foi observado na Comperj, Boeing e olimpíadas, entre outras situações. A estimativa dos autores é que em metade dos casos o valor orçado ultrapassou ao dobro do valor original. Em Montreal, por exemplo, o valor gasto foi de 720 por cento acima do valor orçado; em Barcelona foi de 266%. O percentual de cost overrun do Rio foi de 51% (Londres igual a 76%)
Agora atenção:
the Rio 2016 Games, at a cost of USD 4.6 billion, appear to be on track to reverse the high expenditures of London 2012 and Sochi 2014 and deliver a Summer Games at the median cost for such Games. The cost overrun for Rio – at 51 percent in real terms, or USD 1.6 billion – is the same as the median cost overrun for other Games since 1999.
O custo dos jogos do Rio estão estimados em 4,6 bilhões de dólares, bem inferior a Londres (15 bilhões), Pequim (6,8 bilhões), mas superior a Atenas (2,9 bilhões) e Atlanta (4,1). Quando se compara o custo por atleta temos 0,4 para o Rio, 1,4, 0,6 e 0,5 para Londres, Pequim e Sidnei.
Eis uma tabela comparativa:
11 agosto 2016
Custo do aumento do salário mínimo
O custo fiscal da política de valorização do salário mínimo foi de R$ 47,5 bilhões em 2014, segundo estimativa do Tesouro Nacional, tornada pública pela primeira vez. O valor correspondeu a 0,92% do Produto Interno Bruto (PIB). Em termos de comparação, o gasto do governo federal com o programa Bolsa Família naquele ano foi equivalente a 0,47% do PIB.
Fonte: aqui
10 agosto 2016
Teoria dos Jogos é inútil
Esssa é a opinião de um dos melhores e mais importantes economistas da atualidade: Ariel Rubistein. É muito raro encontrar um acadêmico que tenha uma visão tão realista e crítica da academia e tem a coragem de dizer o que pensa sobre a (in)utilidade de sua pesquisa.
"I have devoted most of my life to economic theory and game theory. I believe that I would like to do some good for humankind and, in particular, for the people in Israel, the country where I was born and where I make my home. I would like to make an impact and redress injustices. Ostensibly, all this should motivate me to utilize my professional knowledge in order to bring some relief to the world. But, the thing is, that is not how I feel. [...]
The heart of game theory is not empirical science. It does not study how people actually behave in strategic situations. It is doubtful whether it is even possible to generalize about the way people will behave in a situation like the Hide and Seek Game. After all, people are diverse. [...]
Game theory is written in a mathematical language. [...] Personally, the nearly magical connection between the symbols and the words in game theory is what captivated me. But there are also disadvantages: The formal language greatly limits the audience that really understands it; the abstraction blurs factors that natural thought takes into account and the formality creates an illusion that the theory is scientific.
Game theory fascinates me. It addresses the roots of human thought in strategic situations. However, the use of concepts from natural language, together with the use of ostensibly “scientific” tools, tempt people to turn to game theory for answers to questions such as: How should a system of justice be built? Should a state maintain a system of nuclear deterrence? Which coalition should be formed in a parliamentary regime? Nearly every book on game theory begins with the sentence: “Game theory is relevant to …” and is followed by an endless list of fields, such as nuclear strategy, financial markets, the world of butterflies and flowers, and intimate situations between men and women. Articles citing game theory as a source for resolving the world’s problems are frequently published in the daily press. But after nearly forty years of engaging in this field, I have yet to find even a single application of game theory in my daily life. [...]
In my view, game theory is a collection of fables and proverbs. Implementing a model from game theory is just as likely as implementing a fable. A good fable enables us to see a situation in life from a new angle and perhaps influence our action or judgment one day. But it would be absurd to say that “The Emperor’s New Clothes” predicts the path of Berlusconi [...]
The search for the practical meaning of game theory derives from the perception that academic teaching and research directly benefit society. This is not my worldview. Research universities, particularly in the fields of the humanities and social sciences, are part of a cultural fabric. Culture is gauged by how interesting and challenging it is, and not by the benefit it brings. I believe that game theory is part of the culture that ponders the way we think. This is an ideal that can be achieved in many ways – literature, art, brain research and yes, game theory too. If someone also finds a practical use for game theory, that would be great. But in my view, universities are supposed to be “God’s little acre,” where society fosters what is interesting, intriguing, aesthetic and intellectually challenging, and not necessarily what is directly beneficial.Fonte: aqui
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)