No passado dia 17 de outubro, a Águas do Algarve recebeu uma visita muito especial à Estação de Dessalinização de Água
O conteúdo Ordem dos Engenheiros – Delegação Distrital de Faro – Visita à obra da Estação Dessalinizadora de Água do Mar do Algarve aparece primeiro em Algarve 7.
Of all the arguments for protectionism, the infant industry argument probably has the strongest theoretical appeal. By protecting a new industry from its more developed foreign competition, the story goes, tariffs give domestic producers the time to grow, learn, and become efficient enough to stand on their own. Domestic consumers feel the short-term pains of higher prices, but they enjoy the long-term gains of job growth and lower prices as the new industry blossoms.
It's no secret that tariffs have driven significant price increases over the last year and a half. A study from the New York Federal Reserve finds that tariffs "contributed 2.9 percentage points to goods price inflation" and that without tariffs those prices would have slightly declined. Tariff defenders, looking for a new reason to claim these higher prices are only temporary, have reimagined the infant industry argument. Now it's being used to support trade barriers in industries that are over a century old, but the promise is exactly the same: Domestic firms need the protection so they can compete, innovate, and cut costs until prices come back down even further than they were before the tariffs.
Michael Brendan Dougherty recently made such an argument in National Review, arguing that "tariffs can, over time, bring prices below where they started." When economist Don Boudreaux called the argument "bizarre," Dougherty replied that critics had failed to acknowledge the dynamic process by which markets respond to tariffs "by adapting and cutting costs." Although he is light on specific details, he posits that the changed incentives of a "paradigm shift" in tariff policy will spur domestic competition, leading to the theorized price reduction. Of course, firms would still respond to the dynamic processes of domestic competition without a tariff wall, but the point stands.
From there, the reworked infant industry argument becomes the standard version advanced more than two centuries ago by Alexander Hamilton and his disciple Friedrich List. When Hamilton made this claim in 1791, his argument may have seemed suitable for a new nation seeking to firm up its economy and security against established European powers.
Others at the time pointed out that special interest groups—a manifestation of the "violence of faction" so thoroughly dissected in the Federalist Papers—had already begun to coalesce around the fledgling iron industry in Pennsylvania, clamoring for protective tariffs. Two years earlier, James Madison had warned about a "premature policy of stimulating manufactures" driving tariffs too high. In the end, Hamilton recommended and Congress enacted a far more moderate tariff schedule than his theoretical musings portended. American iron manufacturers received a consolation prize of a higher tariff on their competitors than the rate for most general imports. Hamiltonians have been touting the infant industry argument ever since.
Nearly 250 years later, those same infants apparently have yet to advance into adulthood. Steel, the direct successor to the founding-era iron manufacturers, remains a singular focus of President Donald Trump's protectionist tariff policies, just as it was under former President Joe Biden. And former President George W. Bush before him. Indeed, steel has been a recurring beneficiary of protectionism for most of America's existence.
This extended period of protectionist infancy suggests that the argument needs a new name. We propose the "Peter Pan industry argument" for companies that never grow up because tariffs make sure they never have to.
The question tariff advocates rarely ask is: Why do some American producers have higher costs than foreign rivals even in the face of lower-cost foreign competition? The answer comes down to specific rules and choices within particular firms and industries. Tariffs, and protectionism in general, address none of these. No industry illustrates this like steel, but it is far from the only one.
In 1947, United Steelworkers won a contract provision known as Section 2-B. Among other things, this barred mill managers from changing established work practices unless new technology required it. Steel companies tried to get rid of this in 1959, finding it difficult (given union incentives) to establish that technology required change. In response, 500,000 steelworkers went on strike for 116 days. This strike sent buyers abroad, causing 1959 to be the first year the U.S. imported more steel than it exported. One of the then-new technologies that was delayed was basic oxygen furnaces, which could produce steel far faster and cheaper than the open-hearth furnaces that were so common. In 1965, only about 17 percent of steel made in the U.S. was made using the basic oxygen furnace. Japan produced 55 percent of its steel with this faster, more efficient method.
Change finally came from a steel customer. Vulcraft, a maker of steel joists, grew tired of paying Big Steel's prices and waiting for Big Steel's deliveries. In 1969, free from steel unions and preconceived notions, the company looked for new steel-producing technologies and found the answer in the electric arc furnaces that had been adopted in much of the world throughout the 1950s and '60s. Vulcraft's parent company later renamed itself Nucor, and minimills like the ones it pioneered now make most of America's steel.
So the modern steel industry was built by a frustrated steel buyer who found a way around protected companies. In other words, the U.S. steel industry has lagged behind the technologies found around the world.
We could go on, but the broad point here is that the "relatively higher domestic production costs that made the tariff 'necessary' in the first place," as one critic put it, are often the result of preventing competition in the first place. It's odd to suggest that further preventing competition through tariffs will somehow alleviate the ills of already-prevented competition.
Tariff advocates fail to acknowledge that the ability to import steel also comes with the benefit of access to cheaper steel for steel-using industries, such as manufacturing. A 50 percent tariff on steel further closes the release valve that imported steel offers. Buyers of steel are then left to purchase more of the more expensive domestic steel. Because new steel mills take years to bring online, this causes delays and longer delivery times for manufacturers.
We don't have to wonder what happens when a country lowers its tariffs on materials used by manufacturers. India did this in the '90s, and researchers found that newly available inputs accounted for 31 percent of the new products that Indian manufacturers introduced. And what happens when the U.S. imposes tariffs on steel? Downstream U.S. firms become less competitive. This is why American businesses clamor for exemptions to tariffs, especially for tariffs on materials like steel.
Perhaps all this could be forgiven if tariffs advanced national security concerns, as tariff advocates assert. They point out that an adversarial nation could cut off supplies of critical materials during wartime and cripple America's ability to defend itself. Unfortunately, tariffs fail there too.
First, this conflates production with access. While domestic production does ensure domestic access, access can be secured without production. In the case of steel, the Commerce Department reports that in 2025, the U.S. imported steel from 79 countries, with Canada being our top foreign supplier. The top 10 sources of steel are responsible for 77.8 percent of America's steel imports. None of those countries were considered adversaries—at least not until the tariff crusades pushed these friends away. What's more, according to the American Iron and Steel Institute, only 23 percent of finished steel in the U.S. was imported in 2024. Far from being exposed to foreign states' whims, American access to steel is incredibly resilient.
Second, this view ignores the positive effects of trade and globalization on national security. The Center for Strategic & International Studies finds that increased trade between countries reduces the likelihood that they'll go to war against one another. Globalization helps ensure that domestic access continues unabated should war break out, thanks to the diversity of trading partners.
When Hamilton made the infant industry argument, he at least assured us that the industry would at some point advance to adulthood and stand on its own. Steel, like so many other Peter Pan industries, has proven Madison right. These industries have refused to grow up, and it's time to stop pretending that tariffs will fix that.
The post Peter Pan Tariffs for Companies That Never Grow Up appeared first on Reason Magazine.
A seguradora Fidelidade anunciou o lançamento de um novo ‘website’, uma iniciativa inserida no seu programa de renovação dos canais digitais do grupo que tem a finalidade de reforçar a estratégia de transformação omnicanal e aproximar a empresa de clientes, mediadores e parceiros.
De acordo com o comunicado divulgado pela seguradora, a nova plataforma integra simuladores evoluídos, uma imagem renovada, navegação mais intuitiva e novas funcionalidades de ‘self-service’.
O objetivo passa por garantir uma experiência integrada e personalizada ao longo de toda a jornada do cliente, desde a descoberta de soluções até à contratação e utilização dos serviços, diz a companhia liderada por Rogério Campos Henriques.
A estrutura tecnológica adotada permite flexibilidade para acompanhar a evolução da oferta e adaptar conteúdos às necessidades dos utilizadores, articulando de forma mais próxima os canais digitais, a rede de mediação e as equipas de apoio ao cliente, explica a seguradora.
O diretor de Marketing e Clientes da Fidelidade, Sérgio Carvalho, sublinha no comunicado que a nova ferramenta materializa uma visão estratégica para proporcionar “experiências mais simples, mais personalizadas e mais integradas”, permitindo aos clientes o contacto através do ponto de interação que lhes for mais conveniente.
Fundada em 1808, a Fidelidade é líder de mercado no setor segurador em Portugal nos ramos vida e não vida, registando uma quota de mercado de 28,1% em 2025. A companhia, que conta com 2,4 milhões de clientes no país e mais de 10 milhões a nível global, está presente em 14 países e registou em 2025 um volume global de prémios de 6,5 mil milhões de euros.
O presidente do Chega, André Ventura, gastou 3,7 milhões de euros na campanha eleitoral das presidenciais, o triplo dos 1,2 milhões gastos por António José Seguro, que o derrotou na segunda volta do sufrágio.
Os dados constam das contas das campanhas entregues pelos candidatos das últimas eleições presidenciais à Entidade das Contas e Financiamentos Políticos (ECFP) e divulgadas esta quinta-feira.
André Ventura foi, com larga margem, o candidato que apresentou maiores despesas, num total de 3,73 milhões de euros, mais cerca de 2,8 milhões do que os 900 mil inicialmente previstos no orçamento entregue à ECFP antes das eleições.
Os principais gastos do líder do Chega correspondem a estruturas, cartazes e telas, nos quais investiu 1,72 milhões, seguindo-se os brindes e outras ofertas, categoria em que registou um gasto de 972 mil euros.
A campanha de Ventura gastou ainda 346,6 mil euros em propaganda, 210,7 mil euros em comícios, 175,5 mil euros em custos administrativos e 143,5 mil euros na conceção da campanha e em agências de comunicação, além de 156,4 mil euros classificados como outras despesas.
Do lado das receitas, a candidatura recebeu 1,03 milhões de euros de subvenção pública e 2,7 milhões de euros de partidos políticos para financiar a campanha. Os donativos de particulares totalizaram apenas 760 euros.
André Ventura ficou em segundo lugar na primeira volta das eleições presidenciais, com 23,5% dos votos, e foi derrotado na segunda volta por António José Seguro, que venceu com 66,8% dos votos.
António José Seguro, que se candidatou como independente com o apoio do PS, tinha orçamentado uma campanha de 1,13 milhões de euros, mas acabou por gastar 1,22 milhões, mais cerca de 90 mil euros do que previu.
A maior parcela da despesa da candidatura do atual Presidente da República correspondeu a comícios, em que gastou 412,9 mil euros, seguindo-se os cartazes (329,5 mil euros), a conceção da campanha e agências de comunicação (206,4 mil euros), propaganda (140,7 mil euros), custos administrativos (77,8 mil euros) e brindes (55,9 mil euros).
A candidatura vencedora recebeu 1,03 milhões de euros de subvenção pública e 125,6 mil euros de angariação de fundos.
Indicou ainda que recebeu 71,1 mil euros de partidos políticos, depois de ter previsto, no orçamento entregue à ECFP antes das eleições, que não iria receber qualquer verba de forças partidárias.
Depois dos dois candidatos da segunda volta — que tiveram, por isso, campanhas maiores –, surgem os nomes de Henrique Gouveia e Melo, que gastou 984,7 mil euros, Luís Marques Mendes, com despesa de 880,6 mil euros, e João Cotrim Figueiredo, que gastou 744,5 mil euros.
Entre os candidatos que não receberam qualquer subvenção pública, António Filipe investiu 329 mil euros, Catarina Martins 89 mil e Jorge Pinto gastou 82 mil euros — os três tiveram as campanhas largamente financiadas pelos respetivos partidos. André Pestana ficou pelos 5,9 mil euros de despesa, totalmente financiados por donativos e cedência de bens a título de empréstimo.
Dos 11 candidatos, não entregaram contas à ECFP Humberto Correia e Manuel João Vieira.
File image.
In the Kupyansk direction, Russian units have expanded the zone of control west of the city, taking Moskovka and Malaya Shapkovka and approaching Palamarevka, while fighting continues inside Kupyansk itself and in the area of Kupyansk-Uzlovoy. In the Sumy direction, assault groups of the “North” grouping maintain a high rate of advance. In the Kharkiv direction, heavy fighting is under way: Russian assault groups are advancing southwards, achieving tactical successes in the areas of Tokarevka and Bugayevka, while the Ukrainian command is transferring artillery from the Sumy region. In the Zaporozhye direction, guardsmen of the 37th Separate Motor Rifle Brigade of the 36th Combined Arms Army of the “East” grouping have broken the resistance of the 225th Separate Assault Regiment of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and expanded control over an area of more than ten square kilometers, while units of the “Dnepr” grouping have taken Yulyevka and forced the Konka River. Meanwhile, the European Commission hopes to reach a political agreement by the end of 2026 on additional funding for Ukraine in 2027, despite the fact that only €20 billion of the previously agreed €90 billion EU loan has so far been disbursed to Kyiv because of stalled reforms.
Kupyansk direction
Russian units continue to expand control of territory west of Kupyansk. As a result of successful offensive actions, Russian troops have taken Moskovka and Malaya Shapkovka and approached Palamarevka. These are the main axes on which the Ukrainian side had concentrated forces for transfer into Kupyansk.
Fighting for the city continues inside Kupyansk itself. In the area of Kupyansk-Uzlovoy, battles are also under way near the Foundry and near Kovsharovka. Clearance is being conducted in the pocket east of Novoosinovo and Glushkovka; positions of Russian and Ukrainian units in this pocket remain intermingled.
On the Kupyansk direction the main combat operations are concentrated in the western part of the city and on the north-western approaches. In the areas of Mirovoye and Malaya Shapkovka the struggle for the retention of positions continues. Further advance is linked to the Sobolevka–Palamarevka sector, where Ukrainian resistance persists. Inside Kupyansk the situation is most tense on the western and south-western outskirts. Primary attention is focused on the Yubileyny micro-district, the Malye Rovny woodland and the adjacent urban built-up area.
In the central part of the city the railway station Kupyansk-Yuzhny, the district administration, the bus station and the Hospital Quarter retain key importance. The struggle for control of urban infrastructure directly affects the position of units on the western outskirts.
Sumy direction
Assault units of the “North” grouping maintain a high rate of advance in the Sumy region. The Ukrainian side is actively strengthening its defences and equipping additional positions.
In the Sumy border area fighting is predominantly positional. Reports from the ground indicate that Ukrainian units are counter-attacking on individual sectors. The “North” grouping maintains its pace. Assault units are fighting near Khoten, Velikaya Rybitsa and Nikolskoye. A sabotage-and-reconnaissance group from the 3rd Special Operations Forces Regiment has been destroyed. In the Shostka district Russian assault troops are advancing through forest plantations towards Korenek; in the Krasnopolye district they are advancing near Turya.
In the Sumy district assault units of the “Northerners” are conducting small-arms fighting in the areas of Khoten, Velikaya Rybitsa and Nikolskoye. In the Shostka district Russian assault troops continue to advance through forest plantations in the direction of Korenek. In the Krasnopolye district assault groups of the “Northerners” are advancing in the area of Turya.
Kharkiv direction
Heavy fighting continues on all sectors of the front in the Kharkiv region. Assault groups of the “Northerners” are advancing in a southerly direction with the support of aviation, artillery and TOS-1 “Solntsepyok” systems. The Ukrainian command is increasing the amount of artillery on the Kharkiv direction, having transferred batteries of the 148th Separate Artillery Brigade of the 8th Air Assault Corps from the Sumy region.
On the western flank of the Kharkiv front there have been tactical successes in the areas of Tokarevka and Bugayevka, with advances of up to four hundred meters in places. In the area of Velikiye Prokhody a high-explosive aerial bomb struck a major strongpoint. On the eastern sector clearance of the former Reznikovsky cauldron continues; the main fighting is near Prikolotnoye. The Ukrainian side has transferred artillery reserves here from the Sumy direction.
In the Lipetsk direction the “Northerners” are advancing in the area of Novaya Kazachya and Tokarevka. Over the past day overall progress amounted to 400 meters. In the Volchansk and Veliky Burluk directions the most intense fighting is taking place in the area of Prikolotnoye. There have also been advances in the areas of Bugayevka, Maly Burluk and Sosnovy Bor. Russian units continue to expand the zone of control, driving Ukrainian forces from the positions they hold.
Zaporozhye direction
Persistent work is under way around Orekhov. Guardsmen of the 37th Separate Motor Rifle Brigade of the 36th Combined Arms Army of the “East” grouping have broken the resistance of the 225th Separate Assault Regiment of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. The area brought under control exceeds ten square kilometres. Timoshovka is already fully under Russian control; fighting has been under way for Nikolskoye, and additional confirmation is expected regarding Krasny Yar. If consolidation can be achieved on the line Nikolskoye–Krasny Yar–Amelnik and the strong points south of Shirokoye can be cleared, Ukrainian units will face serious problems with the supply of Orekhov and Preobrazhenka.
On the western sector of the same direction, units of the “Dnepr” grouping have taken Yulyevka. Paratroopers forced the Konka River and reached the left bank. Four kilometers remain to the H-08 highway. Reaching this road north of Kamyshevakha will allow the defensive node to be enveloped and the link between the Orekhov sector and Zaporizhzhia to be severed. Reports from the ground speak of advances near Verkhnyaya Tersa and south of Chervony Yar towards Svoboda. Fighting continues in the area of Omelnyk. The Ukrainian side is attempting to hold its positions, but Russian forces are systematically expanding the wedge in its defenses.
Conclusion
In the Kupyansk direction the capture of Moskovka and Malaya Shapkovka and the approach to Palamarevka create a threat to the transfer of Ukrainian reserves into Kupyansk, where fighting is under way in the central part of the city. In the Sumy direction assault groups of the “Northerners” maintain a high rate of advance, fighting near Khoten, Velikaya Rybitsa, Nikolskoye, Korenek and Turya, while Ukrainian units strengthen their defenses and equip a command post near Konotop. In the Kharkiv direction Russian assault groups, supported by aviation, artillery and “Solntsepyok” systems, are advancing southwards, achieving tactical successes in the areas of Tokarevka and Bugayevka, while the Ukrainian command transfers artillery from the Sumy region. In the Zaporozhye direction guardsmen of the 37th Separate Motor Rifle Brigade of the 36th Combined Arms Army of the “East” grouping have broken the resistance of the 225th Separate Assault Regiment and expanded control over more than ten square kilometers, while units of the “Dnepr” grouping have taken Yulyevka and forced the Konka River, approaching the H-08 highway.
Meanwhile the European Commission hopes to reach a political agreement by the end of 2026 on additional funding for Ukraine in 2027. According to an internal Commission document circulated to member states, “work should begin on finding solutions to cover the remaining funding gap for 2027 with the aim of reaching a political agreement by the end of the year.” Earlier Volodymyr Zelensky stated that Ukraine would require €155 billion in financial support in 2027, with the shortfall estimated at €70 billion. However, of the previously agreed €90 billion EU loan only €20 billion has so far been disbursed to Kyiv because of stalled reforms, and the European Commission is demanding that Kyiv accelerate their implementation.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SouthFront: Analysis and Intelligence
NOW hosted at southfront.press
Previously, SouthFront: Analysis and Intelligence was at southfront.org.
The .org domain name had been blocked by the US (NATO) (https://southfront.press/southfront-org-blocked-by-u-s-controlled-global-internet-supervisor/) globally, outlawed and without any explanation
Back before that, from 2013 to 2015, SouthFront: Analysis and Intelligence was at southfront.com
The post Russian Army Expands Control West of Kupyansk appeared first on South Front.
© Eugene Kotenko/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
O romance histórico regressa à sociedade de al-Andalus e acompanha um amor impossível no século VIII.
O conteúdo Renato Proença dos Santos apresenta «Sha’bãn – Amor ao Luar» em São Brás de Alportel aparece primeiro em Barlavento.
© GREGÓRIO CUNHA/LUSA
© MANUEL DE ALMEIDA/LUSA
© Getty Images
Login