Marina Silva embaixadora do Painel do Clima!

The Guardian 10-10-2026 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/oct/10/marina-silva-flavio-bolsonaro-the-amazon-brazil-president-far-right

O capital no séc. XXI: rendas pra que te quero!

Linkedin 16-01-2026, por Nicolas Gold, Univ. of California, College of the Law, S Francisco

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/rent-economy-just-annoying-dangerous-nicolas-gold-ebrpc  

The Rent Economy Is Not Just Annoying. It Is Dangerous

Imagem: LinkedIn / Nicolas Gold

A growing share of the modern economy, especially online, is shifting from value creation to rent extraction. This is often described as a consumer problem: subscriptions instead of ownership, rising fees, limited choice, and the sense that you are never finished paying.

That description is accurate, but incomplete. The deeper problem is macroeconomic. An economy increasingly organized around rents rather than productivity is structurally hostile to long-term growth.

For individuals, the shift is obvious. Software is rented, not bought. Media is licensed, not owned. Platforms charge for access to markets, audiences, and even visibility. Switching costs rise quietly. Prices increase incrementally. Exit becomes expensive.

This is not primarily because products are improving faster. It is because control over access has become the business model.

In economic terms, rents are returns above competitive levels. They arise not from creating new value, but from controlling scarce assets, choke points, or barriers to entry. In today’s economy, those assets are often digital: platforms, networks, data, standards, and ecosystems that others must pass through to participate.

Because rents are captured without proportional new output, they are redistributive by design. Income flows upward to asset owners and intermediaries rather than being shared through wages, competition, or lower prices.

At this point, it is useful to draw an uncomfortable comparison. Economically, rents and taxes share a basic similarity: both are compulsory payments that reduce disposable income and shape behavior. The difference is not how they are experienced, but how they are justified. Taxes earn legitimacy when they are predictable, rule-based, and used to finance public goods and long-term capacity. Rents offer no such justification. They are extracted privately, without accountability, reciprocity, or obligation to reinvest in collective welfare. That is precisely why erratic, toll-like charges feel so corrosive, and why societies that rightly scrutinize taxes should be at least as skeptical of private rent extraction, which often imposes comparable costs with far fewer benefits.

Over time, the consequences are predictable. Income concentration weakens demand, as a growing share of earnings accrues to those least likely to spend it. Investment shifts toward defending moats rather than improving productivity. Capital rewards lock-in, leverage, and control more than innovation. Competition erodes. Entry slows. Innovation still occurs, but its gains diffuse more slowly and are increasingly captured by gatekeepers.

The economy may continue to show profits and even headline growth. But that growth is increasingly the result of reallocating existing surplus rather than expanding it.

Digital markets amplify these dynamics. Network effects favor winner-take-most outcomes. Data advantages compound. Marginal costs fall, but prices remain sticky. Platforms begin to resemble private market governors, setting terms rather than competing on them.

This is why rent-based systems often appear stable and successful until they are not. They can sustain high profits and concentration for long periods while quietly eroding the foundations of broad-based growth. When adjustment finally comes, it does not arrive as a gentle correction. It arrives as slower growth, rising instability, and abrupt efforts to reassert control over systems that have already hardened. By then, the costs of unwinding them are far higher than the costs of preventing them.

The shift toward rents is therefore not just a consumer grievance. It is a system-level warning. An economy that prioritizes extraction over creation does not merely frustrate individuals. It undermines its own capacity to endure. 

[destaques Avebarna]

2026-09-13

Eleições 2026: galeria das celebridades

 

Montagem: Avebarna

Os Processos de D.C.

 

The Guardian 08 10 2026

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/oct/08/cassidy-hutchinson-criminal-charges-doj 

Holocausto palestino

 

The Guardian 07 10 2026 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/oct/07/palestinians-gaza-existing-amid-disease-despair-ruins 

A 'enclosure' do século XXI

 

Eleições 2026: galeria das celebridades

 

Montagem: Avebarna

Ver também "Eleições 2022: galeria das celebridades"
https://avebarna.blogspot.com/2022/10/avebarna-herald-segunda-com-lei.html

Avebarna nas eleições 2026

 

CQD: o programa do imperialismo esclarecido

Substack 01-10-2026, por Paul Krugman
https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/a-globalist-comeback

A Globalist Comeback? - Hints of a business break with MAGA

Paul Krugman

On September 28th Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, one of the most prominent, most successful financial figures in the United States, published an article in the Wall Street Journal titled, “The Hell with Trump, Let’s Go Back to Globalism.”

Okay, that’s a lie. That wasn’t what the article was titled, but it was, in effect, what it said. (..)

So what did Dimon call for? Well, he basically said, we need to repair the Western alliance. We need to bring the Western world, the advanced democracies, above all the United States and Europe, back together in part as a way to stand up against the threat of a rising China. And his proposal for how to do that was to negotiate a free trade agreement between the United States and the European Union. (..)

(..) free trade agreements can be a way of not just enhancing trade, which is important, but maybe not as important as economists would like to think. But they can also be a way of binding countries closer together. They can be a gesture of alliance. And Dimon obviously thinks that this is possible, or at least thinks that it might be possible — close enough to being something that would really be on the table, that it’s worth making a case for it, and that it’s worth positioning himself and his institution for a post-MAGA era. And as I said, Dimon is a smart guy with a very, very good political judgment.

So that op-ed was one of the most encouraging things I’ve seen in months. (..) [Destaque Avebarna]

2026-10-03

Avebarna Fridays for Future

The Guardian 29-09-2026
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/sep/29/un-warns-of-narrowing-window-to-restore-worlds-forests

 

Hamas e Bibi: a fome e a vontade de comer

 Financial Times 28 09 2026 https://www.ft.com/content/f261c9cd-7169-4d16-97fc-9859099ce0f8 

Cogitar não ofende

Bloomberg 25 09 2026
Imagem: The Rundown, edição Avebarna
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2026-09-25/robot-installations-outpaced-human-hiring-at-us-factories-in-2025 

Faz alguns dias que eu me pergunto se a recente onda de nervosismo com os desenvolvimentos disso que está convencionado chamar-se Inteligência Artificial não provém da percepção, por parte dos proprietários dos direitos sobre seus aplicativos, de que a velocidade com que o trabalho é automatizado, na indústria como nos serviços, é a mesma com que o fundamento do valor é destruído e, com ele, também o da propriedade privada dos meios de produção.

PS: Será mera coincidência o fato de o desvario trumpista se expressar como políticas de tarifas aduaneiras e pilhagem de recursos naturais?

Chamem o alienista!

O que mais impressiona no ponto de vista dessa senhora é o total desinteresse, desprezo mesmo eu diria, pelos interesses gerais de sua própria classe, a dos capitalistas, cuja guarda é hoje exercida pelo presidente que ela prefere ver derrotado nas próximas eleições por sua suposta incapacidade de fazer o "ajuste das contas públicas".

Por "ajuste das contas públicas", o que Madame CEO tem em mente não é, digamos, a recuperação dos bilhões do Rio Previdência evaporados nas pilantragens de Claudio Castro e Daniel Vorcaro. Tampouco a extinção dos supersalários do Judiciário e seus penduricalhos; das emendas legislativas; dos exércitos de apaniguados a que têm direito os picaretas que infestam o Congresso Nacional, as Assembleias estaduais e as Câmaras municipais - autênticos profissionais do rentável negócio da representação política que hoje constitui a essência das instituições parlamentares em nosso país. O que ela tem em mente é o desmanche... dos modestíssimos programas de governo destinados à manutenção da paz social indispensável à boa marcha dos negócios em geral!

Na verdade, o "ajuste das contas públicas" de Madame CEO é o corte de todas as despesas que não vão parar, por via legal ou ilegal, nas mãos de investidores em geral e consumidores de bens e serviços supérfluos e suntuários. 

Que diferença há, pergunto, entre o ponto de vista de Madame CEO, que espera ser governada por uma gangue de mafiosos na esperança de um tal "ajuste das contas públicas", e o do vice-presidente dos EUA, J. D. Vance, que declarou há poucos dias estar "fazendo a obra de Deus e se isso conduz ao fim do mundo, tudo bem"?    

Acho que essa gente precisa ser recolhida, o quanto antes, à Casa Verde. Chamem o Dr. Simão Bacamarte! 

Avebarna nas eleições 2026

O capital no séc. XXI: rendas pra que te quero!

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1763914081313650

A Inteligência Artificial é estúpida o bastante para admitir com franqueza os objetivos de seus proprietários, no caso desse instrutivo clip do senador estadunidense Bernie Sanders aquilo que podemos chamar de "surveillance marketing", aspecto mais geral do "surveillance pricing":

"Surveillance pricing is a data-driven strategy where companies track your online behavior, location, device, and browsing history to dynamically adjust prices. Instead of charging a flat rate, algorithms calculate the absolute maximum amount you are willing to pay at that exact moment. While businesses market this as "personalized discounts," regulatory bodies like the FTC warn it is frequently used as a tool for overpricing and economic discrimination." (Texto gerado por IA)

Significa que a competição econômica pela via da redução de preços resultante do aumento da produtividade do trabalho passa a ser arbitrada por um diferencial decisivo que é o seu exato oposto, vale dizer o aumento dos preços dos produtos e serviços acima do seu valor, derivado da manipulação das expectativas dos consumidores num cenário de concentração acelerada dos rendimentos. É o capitalismo parasitário das rendas de monopólio, das quais eu diria que só conhecemos com alguma profundidade as formas clássicas: riquezas naturais, imóveis urbanos bem localizados e patentes e seus congêneres autorais.

No entanto, a própria IA não é outra coisa que a a transformação do saber humano acumulado desde tempos imemoriais em propriedade dos capitalistas digitais; a enclosure do século XXI. A propriedade privada dos recursos da computação avançada, dita IA, é a fonte da forma definitiva das rendas de monopólio: a do conhecimento.

Avebarna segundo a IA

IA Google 24-09-2026

Não sei se mais me espanto com a inépcia da IA ou 

me congratulo com o fato de não lhe ser inteligível. 

Avebarna Fridays for Future

 

The Guardian 21 09 2026 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/sep/21/planetary-boundaries-breached-scientists-warn-climate-crisis 

The planetary life support systems relied upon by humans have deteriorated to their worst levels ever recorded amid ongoing pollution and habitat destruction, according to a key yet grim annual update by scientists.

Of the nine “planetary boundaries” that help determine whether life can flourish on Earth, seven are being breached at their highest ever levels of transgression, according to the latest planetary health check, a process that was established in 2009. (..)

Contra o Império, emancipação das mulheres!

 

The Guardian 18 09 2026
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2026/sep/18/iranian-actor-laheh-marzban-venice-film-festival-speech-falling-house

Candidato do crime

 

UOL 22-09-2026

https://noticias.uol.com.br/colunas/leonardo-sakamoto/2026/09/22/vorcaro-deu-grana-a-flavio-que-deu-grana-a-milicia-do-caso-marielle.htm 

AOC manda a real!

 

Meidas Touch 19-09-2026

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1444951707826428&set=a.146905417631070 

Full statement:

Last weekend, Dario Amodei, the CEO of Anthropic, one of the largest AI companies in the world, publicly asked his industry to slow down AI development.

Shortly after, Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, followed suit. Then Elon Musk.

This all came days after an Anthropic researcher quit, citing his belief that this technology could wipe out humanity and that AI companies are “gambling with our lives.”

For years, people have warned that generative AI could slip out of our direct control.

Those safety concerns must be taken seriously.

And this is why I have advocated for strict safety standards on how AI is built and deployed, public oversight over this technology, and using existing laws to hold these companies accountable when they cause harm.

But I want to draw your attention to another reality: Right now, the U.S. economy and our financial futures are riding on Silicon Valley’s bet that AI will soon be immensely profitable and pay off. And that bet isn’t looking good.

The formula for a profitable business isn’t complicated: make more money than you spend. But the biggest AI companies aren’t doing that. They are spending hundreds of billions per year on data centers, chips, and other costs while their ability to make revenues that exceed their already-immense sunk costs are unclear. Experts estimate that these AI companies will require another $600 billion of debt just to finance themselves in 2026 alone. That is more than the entire budgets of the U.S. Departments of Justice, Transportation, and Education combined.

Meanwhile, despite almost every single one of these companies not turning a profit and having sunk billions of investor dollars in development of data centers and other infrastructure, AI companies are also on a spending spree of hundreds of millions of dollars in lobbying and dark money in our elections.

It would be one thing if we were discussing a few private companies with a poor business model. But last year, virtually all stock market gains - 80% - rested entirely on just a handful of AI companies.

That tells us two things:

1. Nearly the entire U.S. economy outside the AI industry is relatively stagnating and faring poorly and the gains from these few companies are disguising it; and
2. Millions of people’s retirements - including their pensions, 401ks, and investments - are potentially exposed to this risk.

That’s why these AI companies’ dubious financial positions matter to working people.

These companies argue that debt is necessary. They’ll tell you that building transformative technologies requires upfront capital, and that massive borrowing today will pay off in generating unprecedented prosperity tomorrow.

But this is not the typical debt that startups take on while they build out a company. We are talking about billions going on trillions of dollars leveraged with no indication that these companies will be able to recoup these funds profitably. And they are increasingly looking to the government as their source of cash.

In an effort to hide their debt, tech companies have been relying on “circular financing” where tech giants like Google, Amazon, and Microsoft give billions to AI startups like OpenAI and Anthropic, only for those startups to hand that money right back to buy AI processing power.

In other words, these AI companies are luring in new investors by making it look like their financials are healthier than they really are.

What’s even worse is that retirement and pension funds are key to supporting this illusion.

When the AI companies issue bonds to raise more money, your pension funds and retirement accounts are some of the biggest buyers. When Musk’s AI business went public, it became part of index funds where millions of Americans invest our savings. Many Americans don’t even know that their retirement investments are tied up in these companies at all.

From Big Tech’s perspective, that’s a feature, not a bug. By tying our futures to their reckless gambling, AI billionaires are trying to make themselves too big to fail. They think they can take such dangerous risks because we will bail them out if things go wrong.

Sound familiar? This scene is dangerously reminiscent of the rampant speculation, corruption, and broken incentives leading up to the 2008 financial crisis that plunged millions of working class Americans into financial chaos that we never fully recovered from.

It is no accident that these warnings from Altman and Amodei come months - if not weeks - before these companies were meant to go public.

When companies go public, they have to be more transparent about how they are doing financially. And after a waiting period, they typically have to let private investors - like their own employees - sell their shares.

The New York Times recently confirmed that OpenAI has postponed going public for this very reason. They are in no rush for the truth about their finances to come out.

But the moment these oligarchs began to seek our public tax dollars and public contracts while exposing their companies to public pension funds and investments, they opened themselves to public accountability and scrutiny.

Silicon Valley billionaires have rigged the game and are attempting to shift their financial risk to working people: If they’re right about AI’s potential, they reap the profits. If they’re wrong and the bubble bursts, they are setting up the American people to pick up the tab.

Heads, they win; tails, we lose.

We can stop this, and we shouldn’t play their game. Together we can address both the economic and safety threats of unrestricted AI development and prevent financial chaos and stabilize market risk.

We must make it clear now that should the AI bubble pop, Congress should not bail out Big Tech.

And across our federal agencies, we have the authorities and tools to hold AI companies and their leaders accountable for releasing dangerous, unvetted, and defective products. We must not wait.

Silicon Valley billionaires want us to believe that AI robots will destroy humanity.

But the biggest threat to humanity are the tech oligarchs themselves.

It’s time we hold them accountable.

Thank you for reading.

In solidarity,

Alexandria