Elections Right-wing Bolsonaro wins Brazil presidential race

[MiniCraque]

There is plenty of evidence of it. In fact almost everyday, even before the elections, you can see in the news Paulo Guedes throwing hellbows left and right at the rest of the team, like he did to Onyx Lorenzoni two days ago.

As an example, Guedes said he would privatize all state companies. Bolsonaro later had to retract from that and said that the federal government should keep the "strategic" companies of aviation, banking and energy sectors. Every day you can see similar instances of they going back and forth.

Listen to the VP talking about the energy sector as well. I don't know if I'd describe it as a tug of war, but there's definitely a lack of identity and a bunch of conflicting goals.

Like pension reform vs placating the military, small government vs increased spending on education and healthcare, free trade regardless of political alignment vs alienating China... a lot of stuff that just doesn't mix and will have to be ironed out in the near future.

 

[executionermma]

small government vs increased spending on education and healthcare

In brazilian politics context, small government has 3 pillars: education, healthcare and security. Being in favor of small (er) government doesn't necessarily mean you are against increasing expenses in these 3 areas, they're considered "basic" and fundamental stuff.

I guess in US politics, or worldwide speaking, things change.

 

[MiniCraque]

In brazilian politics context, small government has 3 pillars: education, healthcare and security. Being in favor of small (er) government doesn't necessarily mean you are against increasing expenses in these 3 areas, they're considered "basic" and fundamental stuff.

I guess in US politics, or worldwide speaking, things change.

No it doesn't. What a completely made up definition. There is no consistent small government predominant ideology to begin with, much less one with identifiable pillars.

In any case, those are still conflicting goals. If you want to increase spending on education and healthcare (good luck not doing that with an aging population) AND one of your main goals is to reduce overall spending... that's a problem. There's no way to just snap your fingers and magically reconcile those goals. Something has gotta give, and like always that something will probably be education.

 

[executionermma]

No it doesn't. What a completely made up definition. There is no consistent small government predominant ideology to begin with, much less one with identifiable pillars.

In any case, those are still conflicting goals. If you want to increase spending on education and healthcare (good luck not doing that with an aging population) AND one of your main goals is to reduce overall spending... that's a problem. There's no way to just snap your fingers and magically reconcile those goals. Something has gotta give, and like always that something will probably be education.

That's not exactly a definition, that's what most liberals (not libertarians) would agree it's important/essential to have the government dealing with and taking care of.

These are not conflicting goals. You can reduce spending in other areas and in other ways. Taking from or not increasing the spending in such fundamental stuff it's absurd.

 

[MiniCraque]

That's not exactly a definition, that's what most liberals (not libertarians) would agree it's important/essential to have the government dealing with and taking care of.

These are not conflicting goals. You can reduce spending in other areas and in other ways. Taking from or not increasing the spending in such fundamental stuff it's absurd.

That's what everyone agrees is important having the government taking proper care of. But it's an empty platitude. What really matters is how those goals are weighed on budgetary concerns. Education is fundamental, ok... but should we spend more on it? Less? Same model as before? Different model (I see quite a few people suggesting the voucher system, mostly because they're ignorant)? The devil is always in the details, and we don't have the details.

Moreover, specially when it comes to education and public safety, there's not a lot the federal government can do aside from throwing more money at the problem. You have very little say on how said money is spent, unless you're willing to pick a fight with states and the Legislative branch and centralize even more. That won't happen.

Since we're on the topic of reducing spending... how do you go about doing that? Most truly significant cost-cutting measures are legislative initiatives since most of that spending is mandatory by law. So Congress has to play ball... somehow. You have very little sway over them and not a lot of political capital to garner more support.

 

[Hollywood Jack]

No, it's not measured at all, this guy just spams leftist propaganda and fake news, he's a piece of shit who should stop writing about our country.

Can you tell me exactly what he said that was fake news?

 

[Ruprecht]

There is plenty of evidence of it. In fact almost everyday, even before the elections, you can see in the news Paulo Guedes throwing hellbows left and right at the rest of the team, like he did to Onyx Lorenzoni two days ago.

As an example, Guedes said he would privatize all state companies. Bolsonaro later had to retract from that and said that the federal government should keep the "strategic" companies of aviation, banking and energy sectors. Every day you can see similar instances of they going back and forth.

Guedes really seems like the standard Atlas Network stooge.
Their push to privatise everything always exacerbates socio-economic polarisation. Made worse when combined with a corrupt government that sells the assets off to their associates for political or economic benefit.

 

[KantoTerror]

Looks like Brazil may have a chance to survive the leftist attempt to take the world down.

Right wings are taking over...After US & Philippines...now Brazil....left eating itself...

 

[KantoTerror]

CNN has nothing to do with allegations Trotsky just mentioned, these allegations are from Brazilian media.

Well Brazil media got their own dose of fake news in them then...

 

[KantoTerror]

"Prisons in Brazil are marvels, those are places for thugs to pay for their sins and not live in a spa with good life" - Jair Bolsonaro

 

[Starman]

What's fake news? I realize engaging in actual specifics isn't really your kind's way of doing things, but you can't just say "fake news" without saying what is fake and expect anyone to be persuaded.

Fake news.

 

[HereticBD]

I realise that a lot of Brazilians love authoritirian leaders. Hence why you've had so many.
No, torture is never justified.

In general? It depends. I can see some war/terrorist scenarios, with prudent deadlines leaving you with no other options.

 

[Zookeeper Gabe]

This is also very bad for the Amazon and the indigenous peoples that live there.

 

[Ruprecht]

In general? It depends. I can see some war/terrorist scenarios, with prudent deadlines leaving you with no other options.

No, even the "ticking bomb" scenario doesn't justify it to me. Especially once you acknowledge that the "ticking bomb" scenario is implausible, and in fact used to justify torturing people who "might" know about "ticking bombs".

 

[HereticBD]

No, even the "ticking bomb" scenario doesn't justify it to me. Especially once you acknowledge that the "ticking bomb" scenario is implausible, and in fact used to justify torturing people who "might" know about "ticking bombs".

How is it implausible?

Even if you believe so, you don't believe it to be necessary in a hypothetical scenario where innocent lives were at stake, and you had no time to negotiate, or attempt a longer process? You'd rather innocents killed, before torturing a terrorist?

 

[Ruprecht]

How is it implausible?

Even if you believe so, you don't believe it to be necessary in a hypothetical scenario where innocent lives were at stake, and you had no time to negotiate, or attempt a longer process? You'd rather innocents killed, before torturing a terrorist?

It's implausible because it's never happened outside of fiction. What has happened, repeatedly, is people trotting some variation of this hypothetical scenario out, and using utilitarian ethics to justify torture programs which have produced nothing which justified their existence.
Personally though, I have a more deontological approach to ethics rather than purely utilitarian. So no, I think it's inherently unethical to torture.
The ends do not justify the means.

 

[HereticBD]

It's implausible because it's never happened outside of fiction. What has happened, repeatedly, is people trotting some variation of this hypothetical scenario out, and using utilitarian ethics to justify torture programs which have produced nothing which justified their existence.

I find that hard to believe. Terrorist groups give deadlines for executions all the time, for example.

Personally though I have a more deontological approach to ethics rather than purely utilitarian, so no, I think it's inherently unethical to torture. The ends do not justify the means.

I disagree, but fair enough.

 

[Ruprecht]

I find that hard to believe. Terrorist groups give deadlines for executions all the time, for example.

I linked to the executive summary of the senate report on the CIA's claims regarding the program's justification.
The short version is, they were full of shit.
The real consequence of accepting the "ticking bomb" scenario as justification of torture is simply widespread torture. Maybe utilitarians just aren't adding that fact to the balance of their "ends".
In practice I think they just don't give a shit about the individuals getting tortured, because they don't consider themselves, their family, friends or peers, a potential part of that group.
It's part of why authoritarians are so keen on the idea.

Anyway... this is getting too far off topic. We know Bolsonaro loves him some torture, and it's historical use in Brazil certainly wasn't under "ticking bomb" scenarios.

 

[executionermma]

That's what everyone agrees is important having the government taking proper care of.

Não é simples assim cara. Sim, todo mundo concorda que isso é importante, a diferença é que pra mim essas são as únicas áreas que devem receber investimento pesado. Pra um cara mais intervencionista, são somente algumas das áreas.

Se vc perguntar a um cara de esquerda, social-democrata, ou a um nacionalista de direita, provavelmente o cara vai querer mais participação do estado em tudo. Seja transporte, agricultura, meio ambiente, mercado interno, mercado externo, tudo. O brasileiro liberal conservador em geral, como eu, apoia a interferência constante do estado somente nessas 3 bases da sociedade, bem diferente.

But it's an empty platitude. What really matters is how those goals are weighed on budgetary concerns. Education is fundamental, ok... but should we spend more on it? Less? Same model as before? Different model (I see quite a few people suggesting the voucher system, mostly because they're ignorant)? The devil is always in the details, and we don't have the details.

Moreover, specially when it comes to education and public safety, there's not a lot the federal government can do aside from throwing more money at the problem. You have very little say on how said money is spent, unless you're willing to pick a fight with states and the Legislative branch and centralize even more. That won't happen.

Eu não tenho muito conhecimento sobre como funcionaria exatamente o sistema de voucher, mas pelo que ouvi, meio superficialmente, me parece uma boa ideia. Se houver um projeto que realmente ande tangendo à isso, aí sim procurarei saber mais.

Since we're on the topic of reducing spending... how do you go about doing that? Most truly significant cost-cutting measures are legislative initiatives since most of that spending is mandatory by law. So Congress has to play ball... somehow. You have very little sway over them and not a lot of political capital to garner more support.

Cara, não sou economista e mt menos parte da equipe do Guedes pra te falar detalhadamente como isso seria feito, mas a família Bolsonaro sempre tocou no assunto redução de gastos. Com o Guedes não deve ser diferente. Uma reforma de providência é essencial, pra começar. Também tem espaço pra rever o funcionalismo publico, que gasta mt mais do que deveria. Não sei se seriam as melhores ideias, mas rever a CLT/FGTS e a assistência social em geral também me parece uma boa.

 

[JSN]

Não é simples assim cara. Sim, todo mundo concorda que isso é importante, a diferença é que pra mim essas são as únicas áreas que devem receber investimento pesado. Pra um cara mais intervencionista, são somente algumas das áreas.

Se vc perguntar a um cara de esquerda, social-democrata, ou a um nacionalista de direita, provavelmente o cara vai querer mais participação do estado em tudo. Seja transporte, agricultura, meio ambiente, mercado interno, mercado externo, tudo. O brasileiro liberal conservador em geral, como eu, apoia a interferência constante do estado somente nessas 3 bases da sociedade, bem diferente.
Eu não tenho muito conhecimento sobre como funcionaria exatamente o sistema de voucher, mas pelo que ouvi, meio superficialmente, me parece uma boa ideia. Se houver um projeto que realmente ande tangendo à isso, aí sim procurarei saber mais.
Cara, não sou economista e mt menos parte da equipe do Guedes pra te falar detalhadamente como isso seria feito, mas a família Bolsonaro sempre tocou no assunto redução de gastos. Com o Guedes não deve ser diferente. Uma reforma de providência é essencial, pra começar. Também tem espaço pra rever o funcionalismo publico, que gasta mt mais do que deveria. Não sei se seriam as melhores ideias, mas rever a CLT/FGTS e a assistência social em geral também me parece uma boa.

speak American.