Elections Right-wing Bolsonaro wins Brazil presidential race



The funny thing is that they put Sanders as an example of socialism but then talk about government spending growing faster than tax revenue which is pretty much Republicans since Reagan.
 
The funny thing is that they put Sanders as an example of socialism but then talk about government spending growing faster than tax revenue which is pretty much Republicans since Reagan.

They also gloss over the role of the 2008 financial crisis, which definitely wasn't caused by "socialism".
...buy hey, it's "Prager University"*.

*not actually a university, we just think it makes us sound more respectable.
 
They also gloss over the role of the 2008 financial crisis, which definitely wasn't caused by "socialism".
...buy hey, it's "Prager University"*.

*not actually a university, we just think it makes us sound more respectable.
Brazil was actually doing great on 2008 because at that time China started to focus on them and buy all their iron ore, oil, chicken paws, meat and soy.

Their economic debacle started in 2013
 
Brazil was actually doing great on 2008 because at that time China started to focus on them and buy all their iron ore, oil, chicken paws, meat and soy.

Their economic debacle started in 2013

Yeah? The video gives the numbers for 2008-2015.
The IMF also seems to disagree with you.

a19grf01.jpg


Looks like GDP growth fell off a cliff for 2008-2009. Recovered in 2010 but immediately started declining again until recovery in 2016.

brazil-gdp-growth-annual.png


After the global financial crisis, it looks like it tracks with oil and mineral prices.

historical.png
 
Brazil was actually doing great on 2008 because at that time China started to focus on them and buy all their iron ore, oil, chicken paws, meat and soy.

Their economic debacle started in 2013
Lula, the popular but now jailed president from 2003-2010, said in 2008 that the crisis would hit like a Tsunami the west but would be only a small wave in Brazil, and he was right, GDP still grew during that time.
The real causes will be debated but one of the main reasons has been unchecked corruption in state owned enterprises. CEOs of companies like Petrobras were politically appointed. Although they were also nominally competent. They participated in lots of shady deals, lost billions of dollars, had to pay billions of dollars in fines in the US, foreign investment ran away because nobody wants to invest in a country that appoints these kind of people.
Drop in commodity prices compounded the problem.
To make matters worse many politicians started to get indicted and were found guilty. Then the governing party started to disseminate the idea these convictions were a plot by the judiciary, a form of soft coup. Proposals for a new constitution were part of the official election promises of the governing party candidate. That is legally considered a coup, you cannot invoke a new constitution, you can only amend it through 3/5 votes of both houses of congress and the basic system cannot be changed, you can't abolish congress, for example.

The governing party then tried to run a jailed former president, Lula, that was living in prison and had already governed for 8 years, while you can be elected for more than 8 non-continuous years(2 mandates) it's a tradition to not try to run again after ruling for 8 years.
Foreign investors were scared, withdrew their money and without foreign capital and money from exports, the economy shrunk.
 
Yeah? The video gives the numbers for 2008-2015.
The IMF also seems to disagree with you.


After the global financial crisis, it looks like it tracks with oil prices.
I said above the GDP didn't drop, that was based on World Bank data, but regardless it was close to 0.
The graph is titled "Variation of the Brazilian GDP"
Varia%C3%A7%C3%A3o_do_PIB_do_Brasil_entre_1967_e_2016.png

the 2008 crisis effect was very small. It just doesn't explain why we lost over 3% in 2015 and 2016, while the rest of the world kept growing.
 
I said above the GDP didn't drop, that was based on World Bank data, but regardless it was close to 0.
The graph is titled "Variation of the Brazilian GDP"
Varia%C3%A7%C3%A3o_do_PIB_do_Brasil_entre_1967_e_2016.png

the 2008 crisis effect was very small. It just doesn't explain why we lost over 3% in 2015 and 2016, while the rest of the world kept growing.

2015-2016 is outside the scope the video discussed.
However I'd say it was commodity prices by the looks of it.
 
2015-2016 is outside the scope the video discussed.
However I'd say it was commodity prices by the looks of it.
Prager University is a joke, I'm trying to expand the discussion.
 
Prager University is a joke, I'm trying to expand the discussion.

Sure. I'm always amused by the idea that neoliberalism will end corruption. Too bad Pinochet died before prosecution.
 
They also gloss over the role of the 2008 financial crisis, which definitely wasn't caused by "socialism".
...buy hey, it's "Prager University"*.

*not actually a university, we just think it makes us sound more respectable.
So the fact that the US government had a quota of subprime mortgages that lenders had to give out (growing in percentage of total loans annually) had nothing to do with it. Which is the government’s doing.

But hey... ignore that fact
 
So the fact that the US government had a quota of subprime mortgages that lenders had to give out (growing in percentage of total loans annually) had nothing to do with it. Which is the government’s doing.

But hey... ignore that fact

Crony capitalism isn't socialism.
The reason it was a global crisis, and didn't just effect the US, wasn't a product of subprime mortgages.
 
Sure. I'm always amused by the idea that neoliberalism will end corruption. Too bad Pinochet died before prosecution.
So it was like that. 2008 they were fine, 2009 they took a hit and then China came to the rescue.

And yes, if the government doesn't have money or companies, there is not corruption.

If there is no government, there is not corruption.

Before I was discussion with Rod and he implied that the Chicago boys in Chile have nothing to do with Chile being now the only not shitty country in Latinamerica because the growth was mediocre when Pinochet was in power.

At least I think he seems to acknowledge that Chile was going the Venezuelan road if Allende was allowed to keep in power.

The people that came to power after Pinochet didn't make significant changes in the Chicago boys economical policies, including healthcare, social security, infrastructure, public bids etc. They have been keeping these kind of stuff more or less the same way that the way Pinochet economic team let them... Maybe it has something to do with Chile's actual progress...

Also, trowing any government that is backed for the man clapping in this video is a good thing to do:

 
So it was like that. 2008 they were fine, 2009 they took a hit and then China came to the rescue.

And yes, if the government doesn't have money or companies, there is not corruption.

If there is no government, there is not corruption.

Before I was discussion with Rod and he implied that the Chicago boys in Chile have nothing to do with Chile being now the only not shitty country in Latinamerica because the growth was mediocre when Pinochet was in power.

At least I think he seems to acknowledge that Chile was going the Venezuelan road if Allende was allowed to keep in power.

The people that came to power after Pinochet didn't make significant changes in the Chicago boys economical policies, including healthcare, social security, infrastructure, public bids etc. They have been keeping these kind of stuff more or less the same way that the way Pinochet economic team let them... Maybe it has something to do with Chile's actual progress...

Also, trowing any government that is backed for the man clapping in this video is a good thing to do:



No political corruption you mean. Political corruption just becomes corporate fraud.
Pinochet was corrupt. Neoliberalism didn't prevent that, and it certainly didn't prevent human rights abuses.
What's needed is a strong and independent judiciary.
Is there a developed country with more wealth inequality than Chile?
 
Is there a developed country with more wealth inequality than Chile?

I don't care about inequality. I care about poor people not being poor anymore. I have HUGE wealth inequality compared to Jeff Bezos, but I'm doing alright myself. It would not be ethical to put a gun in Bezos head and tell him to give me part of his money because there is a huge gap between us.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentage_of_population_living_in_poverty

Only 10% of chileans live under USD 5.50 a day. That's way better than other socialists countries in latinamerica like Brazil 19.4% and Bolivia 25%... The only country better than that in Latinamerica is Argentina but their economy is sinking right now because the government is huge there. And when a goverment is huge, the corruption is huge also. Specially in Latinamerica.

So yeah, economic liberalism takes more people out of poverty than socialism. I'm ok with that. Is a shitty idea to take money from rich people only because there is a big gap between them and me.

Social justice is not just. Correcting wealth inequality is theft. And theft is bad. Let's care more about taking poor people out of poverty, and less about rich people having too much money. The only problem is when government has too much money. It destroys everything.
 
I don't care about inequality. I care about poor people not being poor anymore. I have HUGE wealth inequality compared to Jeff Bezos, but I'm doing alright myself. It would not be ethical to put a gun in Bezos head and tell him to give me part of his money because there is a huge gap between us.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentage_of_population_living_in_poverty

Only 10% of chileans live under USD 5.50 a day. That's way better than other socialists countries in latinamerica like Brazil 19.4% and Bolivia 25%... The only country better than that in Latinamerica is Argentina but their economy is sinking right now because the government is huge there. And when a goverment is huge, the corruption is huge also. Specially in Latinamerica.

So yeah, economic liberalism takes more people out of poverty than socialism. I'm ok with that. Is a shitty idea to take money from rich people only because there is a big gap between them and me.

Social justice is not just. Correcting wealth inequality is theft. And theft is bad. Let's care more about taking poor people out of poverty, and less about rich people having too much money. The only problem is when government has too much money. It destroys everything.

Taxation is not theft, and countries like Norway seem to manage with Nationalised resources and extensive social programs just fine.
Trickle down is a myth.
Chile still has it's corruption and it's handful of oligarchs.
Uruguay is doing considerably better (3.7% below $5.50, least corruption in Latin America), and it resisted neoliberalism with comparatively high levels of social spending and state owned enterprises.
 
Sure. I'm always amused by the idea that neoliberalism will end corruption. Too bad Pinochet died before prosecution.
I do not think neoliberalism has anything to do with it. But a politician of any brand that doesn't claim there is a huge conspiracy by the judiciary to frame him is a step up. What will help against corruption are laws and an efficient judiciary.
The party that lost was floating around the idea of giving a presidential pardon to Lula, because why not.
 
I do not think neoliberalism has anything to do with it. But a politician of any brand that doesn't claim there is a huge conspiracy by the judiciary to frame him is a step up. What will help against corruption are laws and an efficient judiciary.
The party that lost was floating around the idea of giving a presidential pardon to Lula, because why not.

A truly independent judiciary is even more important than their efficiency when it comes to tackling corruption. Bolsanaro's first moves in appointing Sergio Moro justice minister wouldn't fill me with confidence on that point.
 
A truly independent judiciary is even more important than their efficiency when it comes to tackling corruption. Bolsanaro's first moves in appointing Sergio Moro justice minister wouldn't fill me with confidence on that point.
Justice minister in Brazil is not a judiciary position FWIW, despite the name. Judiciary positions are filled by public examination, not political appointment, except in the supreme court.
There might be some conflict of interest there as it looks like a promotion (it is in terms of payment and prestige) for the guy who helped to jail his opposition, although Bolsonaro was hardly a candidate for president when it all started.
I can see judges going after the left to get a "promotion", sure. But with most supreme justices being appointed by the left wing government they will be closely watched.
 
Back
Top