|
wateroverfire posted:Cutting back spending is necessary but not sufficient on its own, no. It would have to be one of many steps toward convincing both foreign and domestic investors that the country is not reeling drunkenly toward another crisis and debt default, and that Argentina is a place they can make money. I was in Buneos Aires last year and while I love the city lots, and in many places things are clean and have a fresh coat of paint, anything that required the least amount of actual money to get done seemed to have been deferred. I don't think the city has had a new metro car or a track upgrade since the system was installed. That's not "a middle income trap" unless that means "hilarious mismanagement and squandering decades of accumulated social capital". How are domestic and foreign investors going to make money if the economy falls into recession? How would a recession not cause an even further crisis? What do you do about the peso? Why would foreign investors pour in money anyway looking at emerging markets at the moment? How are you going to make costly capital improvements if you cut back spending at the same time? Would cut education spending back to just to build infrastructure? I guess I have a few questions. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 15:59 on Apr 29, 2015 |
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 01:22 |
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Answer to all of them: digging yourself into a hole with short sighted populist policies puts you in a position where you have no easy, painless, or short-term solutions. What you can't do is keep digging. Chile's economic history is well connected copper and even today its economy will swing with its prices. Over 50% of Chilean exports are still connected to copper, and over 60% to mining. Chile has no magic bullet, you can't pull that one with someone who knows export statistics. As far as "short sighted populist policies", education and social spending are both necessary for an economy like Argentina. Military spending is quite low (.7 to .8% of GDP). You can always raise taxes but I doubt you would like that. Cutting spending has economic costs, there is no free lunch. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Apr 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
Yggdrassil posted:Tax raises SHOULD happen. It would be a direct result of the cuts to subsidies. Then, all that money for subsidies could be redirected to social spending and education. We are talking about an estimate of 80 billion DOLLARS that should have been taken off from corporate subsidies and into social spending over the last decade. This never happened, and it's one of the main reasons why talking about the Kirchners as left wing would be a very bad joke. I believe in part though they go to electricity providers to provide cheaper service? If you cut those subsidies, costs are going to rise back even if discount corruption. A similar argument is going on in Ukraine, the gas company is notoriously corrupt, so they are raising prices to market levels and it very well may be a disaster for the population. You can try to means test service prices, but it has already happened to some extent and otherwise if you raise services prices to the majority of the population then they are going to have to pay for it. quote:Argentina is an amazing country as far as resources go. The only thing that drives investors away is our high volatility, IE poo poo is going down all the time in here. The key to attracting investors is not by direct measures to lure them, it's to stabilize economy and end with the terrible economic administrations we had so far. The subsidizing of service corporations has to stop. The sub-par borrowing treaties have to stop. We need to develop a good plan to open our borders and generate a competitive inner market. We have the resources. 2015's Argentina has seen it's PBI grow by 2.5 times from the last big recession (1998-2002). Ultimately, I will be honest, I think for the time being the investor ship has sailed. Emerging markets are depressed, under-preforming or in crisis. Stabilizing the economy is obviously a good thing, but I am not so certain how it is going to work out as you mentioned. Sub par borrowing is due to Argentina's credit rating which is garbage and has been garbage since the 1990s and will likely continue to be poor. Open borders and competitiveness sounds great until you have an actual market to utilize. It isn't going to be China, the US or Europe. Argentina is an educated country but that doesn't necessarily means success will rain in from abroad. I agree Argentina needs social spending but you are going to have to raise taxes to do it and that isn't even mentioning the Peso. The government is in crisis mode for a reason.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
Yggdrassil posted:Those subsidies were given in the 90's as part of Menem's big plan to sell everything off. Costs SHOULD rise back: Argentinians are paying today an electricity bill which has costs dating back 20 years ago. If you paid 10 back then, and you should pay 150 today, there's about 140 paid in subsidies that keep those prices down. The issue is that the subsidies you are talking about cutting are still mostly going to be reflected back to the population and the whole "sleeping with AC on" issue is neither here nor there. You may get some efficiency out of it by reducing costs, but it isn't going to be like you are going to going to suddenly have a piggy bank to finance infrastructure with. Infrastructure is a good thing don't get be wrong but the money is going to have to come from somewhere and if you simply cut subsidies to pay for it then basically the cost will be born on the population. Also, service usage usually doesn't reflect income strictly, so either the poor and middle class are going to bear most of it or you have to pay the subsidies back to the end users. As far as corruption it is something you probably aren't going to get rid of, unless you legalize it and call it lobbying. Otherwise, higher taxes and a general redistribution of wealth is needed but it is going to take hard choices.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
Yggdrassil posted:Actually, that's not an issue; it's a FACT that people will have to deal with the full cost of electricity, whether you want it or not. What you do to cut subsidies efficiently is 2 things: Ultimately you are just shifting costs, and to be honest, I don't know what type of social efficiency you are going to get out of this especially since services were already means-tested to some extent. quote:-Second, you scrap taxes that hit the people and that are literal moneygrabs/poorly designed, like the current income tax. The bracket system of the income tax needs to be adjusted for (market) inflation but it is still not as regressive as a VAT. If you get rid of all income taxes there is going to be a giant gap in the budget. If anything much higher brackets need to be added to it. quote:Overall, even with both measures taken, people will have to pay more. But they will get their money back in the form of better education, health, transportation, better wages since logistics are optimized... Isn't that the dream? But rarely economics works out so simply and to be honest, you are way over estimating how much savings you are going to get when you consider when costs are actually calculated for lower and middle income families. quote:Of course, corruption in our government would never allow that. That's why we should support candidates that are actively proposing to reform the system against corruption. I've previously made mention of Lousteau. He proposed the creation of a protection program for people that report cases of corruption, and enacting a law that forbids usage of the state's money to fund political campaigns (what Kirchner and Macri have been doing during the last years). Anti-corruption policies are a good thing, but you ultimately have to place a lot of trust in them that THIS TIME it is going to be different. I actually think anti-corruption campaigns are overemphasized and often paper over more intrinsic problems with an society and its economy. That said, the program you mentioned is very much in the European liberal tradition. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Apr 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:It's a shame that along with your ability to google export statistics you don't know more history. Copper is not a new thing in Chile, and has been its major export in bad times (60's, 70's, into the 80's) and good. Sometimes it's a drag and sometimes a boon but since the 70's Chile has had nothing like the economic crisis suffered by, for instance, Argentina, despite fluctuating copper prices and, like I said, much lower stocks of human and social capital. By rights Argentina, which also has a plentiful endowment of resources, should be the most stable and prosperous country on the continent. Instead its neighbor takes that prize and policy is the reason for that. I recognize bad policy when it is apparent, and even then I don't think the current government is Argentina is great but in comparison you haven't offered anything. Copper prices were very high most of the 2000s, and in 2008/2014-15 took dives which has shown up the Chilean economy. That said, Argentina has bad leadership but the worst of it was in the 1990s and it wasn't very leftist. You can criticize the current administration (and its predecessor) for not fixing it, but it isn't a story that starts with them and going back to previous policy isn't going to fix it either. quote:As part of a stable economy that can support that spending, yeah, education and social spending are potentially productive and good long term investments. In the context of an economy that just cracked down on travel agencies to prevent dollars leaving the country, that confiscated billions of dollars in private pension funds and forcibly converted them to pesos, that is right now in litigation over defaulting on hundreds of billions in externally held debt and had to do a deal with China just to stave off collapse, one has to wonder whether priorities are misplaced. Or if, as you believe, leftism cannot fail but can only be failed. Yeah that is pretty much what I expected considering. Anyway, like I said there is no free lunch, and if they strap the budget now then they are going to have to pay for it later in a different form. It isn't even just illiterate children and riots you have to worry about, but a shortfall in income and taxation. I believe non-sense that doesn't work shouldn't be tried again, that goes for both left-wing and right-wing policy. As far as open borders and attracting investment line, I heard it a million times before. As far as their options, if Argentina wants to attract manufacturing they will have to drop wages to their competitors (the developing world). As far as Argentinian exports, they are still largely dominated by agricultural products, and Argentina simply doesn't have the mining/metal industry that Chile has. It doesn't it have an energy export market either. It has people with skills but it isn't easy to turn that into hard capital by having foreign investors come in (despite what many people think). Edit: That capital isn't going to come in necessarily either because middle income emerging markets are toxic. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Apr 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
Future Days posted:Don't let the kids know Peronism is a conservative ideology! It is a syncretic ideology that more or less is corporatist, authoritarian and populist at the same time. It isn't liberal or socialist.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Yggdrassil posted:Yes, it is shifting costs. Now you tell me: why should we keep giving the state's money to giant service corporations, instead of investing that money in things that generate REAL growth? Yes, I know the argument, but I honestly don't think the savings you are going to get from energy savings is going to add up to what you expect to pay for improvements. One thing is most likely you are going to have spend most of the money on subsidies from the consumer end, and even then because of the Peso's instability, consumers may be shortchanged as subsidies don't match costs. Ultimately you may end up still savings some money, but it isn't a country savings measure then of course also it is very possible deregulation could backfire. quote:
I agree with that totally, but my criticism is to interject what is going to be possible. I would certainly like to see a new government in Argentina that does work to eliminate poverty and improve infrastructure but the way to get there is quite murky.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:The world economy took a dive in 2008 and trade in everything with its major partners took a dive at the same time. Chile bounced back pretty quickly, though. 2014-2015 is partly copper and partly political. The dollar has actually been coming down a little because despite low copper prices imports fell off a cliff and we're piling up dollars. It seems mostly to be copper, and general economic currents. The big aberration seems to be in the early 1990s but that is in part likely do to political change. You presented Chile as a model but ultimately Chile is a commodity focused economy both historically that doesn't map to Argentina. As for imports falling, it is probably a combination of a weaker currency, lower commodity prices on what Chile doesn't have (oil/gas) and general internal weakening. quote:LOL. Truly, the only way forward for Argentina is to keep digging. And definitely not to reform energy subsidies so it can sell natural gas to Chile and its neighbors. Argentina would have to dramatically slash usage for it to happen. Yeah you can do that but in the end someone has to pay. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Apr 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Yggdrassil posted:Again, Ardennes: this is not about savings. It's not about scraping some part of the corporate subsidies. It's about taking the whole thing down. Today, we pay just a fraction of what people in the rest of the world pay in regards of energy. To give you an example; i'm living with two other people in my house currently. We have air con, TV, and all the middle class ammenities you would normally expect. We paid, last month, on our electricity bill, the equivalent in pesos to 8 U$S. It is ultimately about how the accounting balances out, you can pay more for energy as a consumer and then in turn have to cut back elsewhere at an individual level. It is likely that energy usage will go down with higher prices, but ultimately a lot of energy usage is going to be hard to get rid of. You can lower further with energy efficiency programs but usually that is a long term solution. There is also an issue with the companies themselves who outlaid an investment counting on subsidies, and in turn they have sunk costs. Ultimately, they will have to make these back some how, and if you price control without subsidies they will take the brunt of it. I don't necessarily even think it is that bad to continue to means test and moderately raise prices for some consumers, but it isn't going to be necessarily the jackpot you think it will be to pay for all those extra expenses. It just simply isn't a issue of you eliminating the subsidies then everything just sort of works out.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Chile is a pretty decent example of not loving up internal policy in a way that destroys decades of accumulated capital and leaves the government scavenging travel agencies for dollars, is the point. It's not down to the winds of fate that Chile didn't end up that way. Argentina's policies are going to look a little different because Argentina is different but the point that it can't afford, for instance, to subsidize an $8 monthly electric bill for a modern household of 3 still remains. Chile wouldn't necessarily be immune from the issues Chile has, if anything Chile is very reliant on external factors. That said, during the 1990s, Chile had better governance than Argentina...it was also largely left of Argentina as well. As far as energy efficiency, you can probably get most of your efficiency through moderately raising tariffs starting from the top and moving on down but honestly I don't see Argentina finding that much more savings out of it unless you go for Ceausescu style austerity. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Apr 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
Not to dredge what is maybe a dead subject: but I was looking at recent statistics (2012) and Argentinian electricity consumption was 286 watts per capita, a little more than Uruguay (273) and Brazil (268) but ultimately under the world average. I was actually a bit surprised it would be under China (458), I guess manufacturing it partly up to blame. Also, Chile was 369 watts per capita.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
bagual posted:It's autocratic nationalism. Perón is like Getúlio Vargas and many other big paternal autocrats who emerged in the 30's, modern queens and kings who took over the state and used it as a brainwashing machine on the masses. They fit the right kind of political hole left by the 30's worldwide depression, firmly backing/backed by landowners and industrial elite, using the middle class as state tools and giving the masses a national identity and the whole range of fabricated "traditions" that come with it, as well as a hell of a show in public spectacles and (mostly fabricated) incredible political stunts. Property system keeps going, expansion in national industry and state bureaucracy jobs and everyone has a benevolent loving father in their life, who hosts public games for his children. It's creepy as all hell, but the leader cult and new state occupations were it's self-generated political legs, and the situation satisfied the conservative political nexus of religious authority, military establishment and reactionary old elite enough that most collaborated or left only muffled reproach. Ultimately it was successive simply because participatory politics were historically largely suppressed, and the previous "old regimes" (for example the Cafe com leite system) did little to actually involve the country much if at all in politics. The irony is after Peron you had an authoritarian military regime and that if anything involved the public even less. A similar course was set in Brazil after Kubitschek. More or less strongmen like Peron and Vargas were so powerful because leftist politics have been so truncated in the first place which left a yawning gap in the political progress, and instead of a strong social-democratic tradition it left a choice between various types of rightists. That said, I see why populism had so much power and still has it, simply because there are really no options on the table on the table. However, it is more than simply "brainwashing" the same time. Even in present-day Argentina and Brazil, I don't see good alternatives in the political system and in many ways populism exists because the class and racial dynamics (especially in Brazil) never changed. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 22:51 on May 19, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 19, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
Markovnikov posted:From my point of view, Peron and his brethren were an answer to the rising socialism/communism that happened in LA (and the rest of the world) in the first half of the 20th Century. As much as people hate him, many of the social achievements we take for granted were originally started during one of Peron's mandates: work regulations, aguinaldo, vacations, divorce law, further separation of State and Church (took some burning tho'), women suffrage, etc. All that along some of the better economic times in the country. Did he do it to appease the unwashed worker masses and not out of a sincere belief? Sure, but maybe the ends justify the means. He wasn't the president we deserved but the one we needed, or some other bullshit. Ultimately Peronism still is around because quite simply there isn't the possibility of the necessary political compromise to kill it, if sustainable reformism happened in a more democratic form than people would quickly forget about Peronism. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be the real possibility for this happening any time soon. In Brazil you could say it look like it was working under the PT, and at the same time recent events have opened up more questions not just about the PT but the ultimate sustainability of the political process as a whole in Brazil. That said, I have a hard time necessarily condemning parts of the public for supporting Peron even in a "creepy" fashion simply because has filled in such a political vacuum in Argentina and it was more than brainwashing (which implies there wasn't honest consent from their side).
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Hate to interrupt Argentina chat, but here's a reminder of how terrible the Brazilian right wing is. In the national college entrance exams this weekend, the theme of the essay was violence against women in society. Which is apparently an example of how PT is indoctrinating kids and using its power to promote feminist and communist causes. Yeah, eventually when a change in power happens, it is probably going to get rather ugly. That said, I don't know what Brazil could really do at this point since it was so reliant on a commodity boom.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Brazil wasn't reliant on a commodity boom. What drove Brazilian growth was government investment and cash transfer programs, which were possible because of cheap domestic and international credit. The participation of exports on the Brazilian GDP actually declined during the boom period. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/brazil/balance-of-trade http://www.tradingeconomics.com/brazil/current-account-to-gdp http://www.tradingeconomics.com/brazil/exports What I am getting from trading economics looks like a export boom that peaked in the mid-late 2000s since has slowly died as Brazil progressively accrued a trade deficit and largely took gdp growth with it. While exports grew until 2010 they more or less stagnated until 2014 then started dropping. Brazil conducts quite a bit of trade with China and if you look at the way the Chinese economy has been going, there is a close correlation. Also fluctuations in commodity prices hit Brazil as much as any other country. Brazilian exports as of 2013 are still mostly agricultural products, mining, and petrochemicals. There are some manufactured goods but they are still only a relatively small portion. It very well be that that cheap credit and spending helped further growth as well, but if you look at the trend, while exports started to decline as a percentage of gdp, growth also took a hit. Until 2008, the Brazilian economy was booming, then it took a big drop afterward then growth settled to 2% in 2012 and has only dropped further from there. There was a big bounce in 2010 but it is quite obvious it wasn't going to last. Ultimately, I think Brazil was actually pretty reliant on export growth during the 2000s for the Lula boom, and while there was a modest recovery after the 2008 crisis, Brazilian growth has been a steady downward slope since that point. Ultimately, low demand for commodities and austerity are both working together to crush Brazil. The problem is that while its deficit isn't bad on its face, it has real difficult accessing credit markets due to its credit rating which leaves either bilateral credit or "lenders of last resort." Further public spending may help stabilize the situation but the issue is paying for it, and it doesn't seem like the government wants to touch its reserves. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Oct 26, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Those graphs are balance of trade, current account to gdp and exports in dollars. None of those speak to what drove Brazilian growth, since none of those account for how much of GDP is based on exports. If you don't read Portuguese, the main headers in the table I posted are consumption, investment, exports, imports and GDP. Within each of the main headers, the first column is growth and the second is share of GDP. Those graphs provide evidence of Brazilian trade patterns versus growth during the period, and in that sense we can see parallels. It is true that investment was quite strong in 2007 to 2011 versus exports, however what does Brazilian growth look like during this period? It is high in 2003-2008 then you have a recession and then in 2010-2011 you had a recovery. That said, the export boom precedes the investment, and cheap credit may have kept growth going briefly but it wouldn't last very long in fact of a global recession. The problem is during the main period of growth from 2004-2008, exports were actually fairly high as a percentage of GDP compared to where they were in 2000. While they declined in the fact of investment, it doesn't also explain why Brazilian growth from 2011 has been steadily dropping. In a sense there is a combination of factors, the revaluation of the real stabilized the country, this was followed by a commodity boom and as the credit situation in Brazil improved, so did growth. However, investment likely began to peter out after 2010-2011. I can't really accept looking at Brazil's stagnating trade since 2011 as a non-issue here especially since growth has been dropping since that period. In a sense of what I am saying, I just don't think Brazilian growth was sustainable after exports started stagnating, and that investment that was happening wasn't necessary unconnected with Brazil's exports. I mean what happens after 2010, is it simply just austerity that causes Brazil's gdp to start dropping? Ardennes fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Oct 26, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Exports actually declined during the boom, as production reoriented itseld to the domestic market. Exports are always important as they are by definition an important part of gdp. But Brazilian economic growth was not primarily related to exports, much less comodity exports, since Brazil has a far more diversified export portfolio than its neighbors. This is straightforward enough, since the period of growth coincided with the crisis in Brazil major trade partner (the US). The literature on this is pretty clear, and if you'd like i can try to find articles in English. Most of the data I have seen shows exports booming from 2000 to 2010. Also, according to most trade data I have seen commodities are certainly a big part of Brazilian trade, while admittedly they are quite diversified. In this sense I am treating petrochemicals/agricultural goods/minerals as commodities. Also, the US economy was fairly strong from 2000-2008. I can see the politics here, that the Brazilian right wants to use exports to attack Lula and diminished the social gains under Lula. However, to be honest, I don't know if the social programs under Lula really actually large enough to have that much of an economic impact on a nation wide scale. They obviously have a social impact and probably a localized economic impact to poor communities, but I don't know if they certainly would be enough to actually change GDP. Although I guess there was a considerable stimulus in Brazil in 2009-2010.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:
Ultimately except in 2010, Brazil really wasn't growing at 7% a year after 2008, that is the central issue. From 2004-2008 Brazil more or less boomed but that was a period of rising exports. The question is why Brazilian growth has steadily dropped from 2011, and exports has to be a part of answer. Also, everything is relative, even if Brazilian exports are a modest part of the economy, it is their relative rise and fall versus themselves which is the issue. The government may have had a hand in public investment and that helped to certain degrees, especially in 2010 but there are rather broad trends that aren't well explained by investment alone, which is why exports is something that needs to be looked at. That said, I think we are at a bit of a impasse since we have two very different opinions about the same data. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Oct 27, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
To be honest, statistically it looks like Uruguay was doing fairly well, not amazing but hardly terrible.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Good observation about the poverty. Everywhere else I've been in Latin America there is visible abject poverty. I'm talking things like widespread begging and glue-addicted orphans living in the streets. Cuba has a more low-level and equal poverty. No one starves or lives on the street, although the food (even if you're carrying hard currency) is uniformly terrible, there's little available for purchase, and accommodations pretty grim. You get the impression that everyone is just waiting, playing dominoes and drinking rum at card tables set up in side streets, playing music, or doing anything else that's free to kill time. I didn't see any beggars or street kids in Cuba, although the incessant attention from jineteras was pretty annoying. It was relentless in Havana. The first time I went was with my girlfriend. We were drinking one evening in a hard-currency hotel bar on Paseo Martí in Habana Vieja. She got up to use the toilet, and not a minute passed before there were two jineteras dripping from my arms and asking me if I wanted company. It's a strange feeling walking around a place and knowing that your purchasing power is hundreds or even thousands of times that of just about everyone you'll meet. Everyone knows it too. Despite that, I never felt threatened by any Cubans. It would seem the solution predictably enough would be a mixed economy that hopefully could be fed by increased trade with the US and more flexible price controls, but largely avoids shock therapy that hit the former Soviet Union. There should be a problem with allowing more small and medium sized businesses to a point, but there doesn't seem to be a strong reason to break up the Rum/Tobacco monopolies or public services.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:I think you are focusing too much on the particulars of the examples I've given and not on the broader idea that I am trying to get across. It's not about models, and its not like they are willing to give up on democracy for consumer goods. Another example I could have given is that they are proud of their education system, but would love to be able to run their small business out in the open (almost everyone I talked to participated in a black market of some form, from selling cakes to exchanging their food ration coupons to buying and selling their "paquetes" - flash drives with international movies or songs that are sold all over the place). The point being that they don't talk about it in grandiose, abstract terms. When talking about things like being able to open a business, or having freer, less censored internet, the argument isn't framed as a "freedom" argument, but as "it would make my life easier" argument. That seems to be pretty reasonable, they want reforms not necessarily revolution and more or less keep the advancements they have made. I mean it sounds basically they want literally the NEP. It seems like the government could gain a lot of good will if they just liberalize businesses up to ten or twenty people or so but more or less keep the rest of the system intact. Also, it sounds like they don't want either the US or China, in all honesty the healthcare system in China sucks and the best care is very often too expensive for people to afford.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
I will say just by looking at a clip from Temer's speech he does seem very much on the economic-right on the scale internationally (and probably from the rest of Latin America) as well. The PMDB is an opportunist party at its heart, but it does seem the chips are down they currently moved to a deeply right-wing economic position. For Brazil he may be moderate, but from anyone from the outside looking it, it looks reactionary. It also pokes a hole in the "Lula" method of reform, ultimately a retrenchment from the right is going to likely to move turn many of the positive (but still often limited) changes that occurred. That said, I am continually interested in people celebrating the "end" of the pink wave in Latin America. Isn't it evident that the pink wave happened in the first place because center-right to right governments across Latin America left large portions of their population behind in the first place? Lula attempted to address the issue with gradual reform but seem to be a apart of a political system that was always hostile to even the most modest changes. The PSUV has been a miserable failure in Venezuela, and while certainly the legacy of the left and the center-left in Latin America is more mixed, but at the same time it seems impossible actual be happy with a return to the right when so little has been changed. Moreover, the support for those governments was honest because many people honestly desired change and it is hard to believe a return to the status quo is going to actually address inequality. I guess the hope is to look at the failure of both Chavez and (very likely) of Lula but that is probably going to be a difficult task without just giving up and going third-way. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Sep 2, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
Regarding Venezuela, I would say they were more syncretic than anything else, they adopted some of the worse economic policies from across the spectrum including a rather neoliberal approach to taxes, unworkable price controls and a complete reliant on one form of exports. They wanted everything including a pretty standard consumer economy without compromising anything, it didn't work. That said, once you have a former military officer basically take control over the left of a country, it isn't that surprising what happens next. Ultimately, the issue in Latin America seems to be more of an issue of leadership and ability to compromise. There doesn't seem to be any half way positions either implement price controls you can't afford or freeze the budget for 20 years.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Didn't they also enact strict austerity? I think it depends on the area of spending, but health and education got a big hit while the military got off relatively easy. It does seem like Venezuela's economy is managed by throwing every day idea together. If there is one lesson to learn, steep long term consumer price controls just don't work. (Admittedly, the lesson should have been learned with the Soviets.) Ironically enough if Venezuela instead of focusing on price controls instead focused on the Missions and building up reserves, they probably would have been okay. To this day, it is still baffling while they did it especially when it was clearly not working years ago. It isn't even they had to give up on their left-wing populism, but the way they did it though was completely unworkable. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Oct 19, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Anyways, Botswana should be as rich as the United States by now if your elaborate and highly empirical theory of economic development were true, where all you need is 1) blind faith in the Invisible Hand of God-Market, and 2) restricting police murders to ethnic and sexual minorities. People who bring up Bostwana usually don't mention the entire country is practically supported by diamond mining (and a lesser extent nickle mining). They didn't unlock some miracle of economics, it is just where diamonds come from. Also, their minimum wage is around 50 cents an hour.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Well, not even that. It's more that Botswana being relatively stable politically means it's absorbed most of the financial sectors of Subsaharan Africa and so is prosperous because it's living off all the African economies. Mining still makes about 80-85% of Botswana's exports. Nevertheless it could easily be both at the same time. Botswana doesn't provide an economy model for other countries in the region, it is an outlier for a reason. It is one of those "success" stories people don't like to look at too closely.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
Dias posted:It exists as much as anything in the magical world of economics exists, let's be fair. We have no idea what and who we actually owe and yet we use half of our budget to pay this poo poo. Might as well do a decent auditing and see what comes out. Admittedly, Brazil is in pretty bad shape as far as its finances go, but a lot of that depends on commodity markets it has no control of. Soybeans took a giant hit since 2014 and there isn't that much Brazil can do about it. Also, Brazil has a pretty dire credit rating which makes it difficult to reliably borrow while it has run up one of the highest deficits in the world. Of course the problem is once you cut start cutting it is going to have a negative effect on the economy and the general welfare of your population. The same thing would be to reform Brazil's tax system so it isn't so amazingly regressive but I have about 0% hope of that. Seriously. Brazil's top bracket is 50,000 reals, which is 14-15 thousand USD. Then you have some of the highest consumption taxes on top of that. Poverty and inequality in Brazil isn't a mystery. Ultimately, I don't think there is a easy fix to Brazil especially since so much of its economy growth was based on a commodity bubble that may never reach the levels it once did and taxes are about as bad as you are going to get. I could seee Brazil fall into a self-inflicted Greece like trap though where the government just keeps on cutting and has to cut to cover even greater amounts to address the deficits from those cuts. If anything Brazil is especially in danger of this because so much of its revenue comes from consumption taxes so any public layoffs or wage cuts are going to come directly from its bottom line. Oh yeah and the "20 year" amendment is going to mean budgets are going to be cut 7-10% a year anyway because of inflation which will probably put public services in a crisis in 3-4 years even if everything else worked out. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Oct 22, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Dias posted:Yeah, we're on agreement on that, but you gotta start SOMEWHERE, and as you pointed out austerity policies usually cause more harm than good. There's better ways to at least alleviate our finances, but what Temer is proposing will probably just gently caress us over in the long term. We need to revamp our taxation system, stop letting banks get away with the LUDICROUS interest rates they get here and look into our public debt as a start. Well Brazilian bank interest ranks are that high, because well the Brazilian prime rate is 14%...yet again one of the highest in the world. I think it is absolutely loving brutal if not completely unsustainable when people are paying 20% on their mortgages but I think the core issue is that the Real is a pretty weak currency. If you are still getting 6-7% inflation with a 14% prime rate then there is a problem with your currency. As for public debt, I think it is probably going to explode over the next couple years as revenue continues to fall and Brazil will be trapped in an austerity spiral. Okay, I didn't know they tried to address inflation but government agencies usually need several percentage points above inflation to keep doing their job at the same level. The cuts from the amendment may be more in the 5-3% range but that is still going to be disastrous when added over a couple years. I think the only easy answer for Brazil is its change its tax structure, but I think that is probably the element that is least likely to be meaningfully reformed. Also, Brazil's trade is dominated by mineral/agricultural commodities which all took a big hit and it is going to take years for them to come around. I think they will slowly but Brazil will be in a real crunch before that happens. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Oct 22, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Mans posted:imagine if the entire republican party considered alex jones one of its biggest intelectuals. Yeah, the way things are going, the US is only behind by a couple of years. Slavery permanently undermined the future of both political cultures.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Yeah, if anything it is a rather terrifying for people outside of Latin America as well. It seems that the Brazilian government really has geared up for an economic war against the population itself.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2017 07:25
|
|
|
The big difference is probably visibility and legality, most corrupt in the US is behind closed doors and/or is often technically legal (like working for a "think-tank" after office, giving half a million dollar speeches etc). If you don't see bribery at the street level then it becomes much harder to acknowledge. Also remember the US is a hybrid between settlement and exploitation (the American South). The ultimate reason why the US was more successful probably has to do with primarily geography, and a critical mass of settlers during the 18th century. The US itself is ideal for colonization, massive amounts of arable land and relatively few barriers for the expansion of settlement. It also is located closer to Europe.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2017 09:16
|
|
|
Yeah, in the case of the US, it isn't corruption because the forces who control the political process are so powerful they can rewrite definitions as they see fit (and who is going to call them on it?). Hell, there are thousands of people in and around DC working on new definitions all the time. That said, I think it is only really possible to grasp how the US actually works by living outside of it for a significant period of time and very few Americans do that.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Yeah, in the case of the US, it isn't corruption because the forces who control the political process are so powerful they can rewrite definitions as they see fit (and who is going to call them on it?). Hell, there are thousands of people in and around DC working on new definitions all the time. That said, I think it is only really possible to grasp how the US actually works by living outside of it for a significant period of time and very few Americans do that. Yeah, American nationalism is very much a thing that exists (it is a bit creepy how people deny it) as is American corruption. That said, it is very hard to take a look in the mirror when you are "on top."
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Why are Brazilians ashamed of their culture? Shouldn't they celebrate being Brazilian and what makes it so unique? I think a big part of it is what is Brazil and what it means to different Brazilians. There are pretty stark racial, class and regional differences in Brazil and in addition, I think the present-day Brazil is if anything becoming more divided. Greece doesn't have the same racial divides as Brazil but there are also stark class and political differences among the population. There is the broader issue of present-day disfunctionality in both countries.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2017 12:43
|
|
|
Yeah, and he was still leading in the polling (often by far). I honestly don't know where the way forward is for Brazil at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
Negrostrike posted:Way forward? There's none. Like I said before, there's no hope. Admittedly, I knew they were going after Lula but giving him 10 years while he is still getting extreme strong polling is pretty impressively hosed.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
nerdz posted:To be honest, at this point Lula is Brazil's Hillary: Someone with a huge target painted on his back and a in a party that is severely weakened by all the latest controversy. If he won, we'd have an even worse repeat of the last two years, so if he can't run I don't feel too bad about it (ignoring all the bullshit around it, and how people who did worse are getting away with it). Lula at least had a history of pushing the politics of Brazil to the left and some real accomplishments. He would be a lighting rod but at least would communicate that the public has some type of voice in the affairs of the country. It would be great if a strong left-wing candidate replaced him, but the odds are really against them.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
Yeah, it should be added that Brazil has some of the highest (and therefore regressive) consumption taxes in the world, and there is massive regional inequality as well as class inequality. I do think the US is still near the bottom for "developed" countries as far as its politics goes, but Brazil is still a cautionary tale.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 01:22 |
|
|
Oh yeah, and the Brazilian government just raised the 2017 deficit target to from 139 to 159 billion Reais after a 154 billion Reais deficit last year due to fact taxes (especially consumption taxes) have taken such a massive hit. Basically, through austerity measures, the government is forcing itself to go broke ala the Eurocrisis. The problem, ironically enough, is that Brazil is pursuing a hard Real policy which is only helping to price out its exports. Brazil isn't going to run out of money in the short-term but I could see both public debt only going higher followed by additional austerity measures since Brazilia really isn't doing anything to stimulate the economy (besides trimming interest rates to 9.25%.) I guess the question is how bad can Brazilians accept. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Aug 21, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2017 18:25
|
|