Brazil is unraveling

BTW, Lula was today indicted in a count of corruption by the Federal Public Ministry (an equivalent of a federal "public attorney"), with Marcelo Odebretch and 8 others.

It still needs to be accepted, but if it is, it will be the second indictment on him; the first one was accepted, and now Lula is a defendent in a criminal procedure. Here is a copy of the first indictment:

http://static.congressoemfoco.uol.com.br/2016/09/denuncia-contra-lula.pdf

To be fair, AFAIK, there is no indictment against Dilma, in criminal courts at least. Yet, anyway...
 
Some South American governments seems hellbent on destroying their own nation, at any cost. Watched a documentary on the situation in Venezuela yesterday. Largest potential oil reserves in the World. And yet the general populace starve, can't get food or medicine. People were waiting 8 hours in line outside supermarkets to get food. Heartbreaking to watch.
 
We have other threads for that, Miss Eva.
 
I saw a report on the nations where it is easiest to do business measuring red tape and regulations. Brazil was 125th out of 140. Fix that and free up trade and you will see both the economy and standards of living rise.
 
Where have I seen you post that before, Oerdin?
 
Live on the news, Eduardo Cunha was arrested a few minutes ago.
 
Guess what? The prosecutor who handled the case against Lula didn't believe he had evidence for the accusation. The judge in that kangaroo court was coordinating the campaign against Lula (instead of acting as a neutral judge - and was rewarded for it with a political appointment). And the team of prosecutors were doing it all to have Bolsanaro elected.

This is nothing new of course. Any intelligent person could see the thing for what it was, a political maneuver to take out the one person who could somewhat hamper the same old corrupt elite from continuing to have total control over Brazil. It didn't go quite as they wished (they got Bolsanaro instead of Alckmin as president) but it certainly went as the kangaroo court judge Moro wished.

“They will say that we are accusing based on newspaper articles and fragile evidence … so it’d be good if this item is wrapped up tight. Apart from this item, so far I am apprehensive about the connection between Petrobras and enrichment, and after they told me I am apprehensive about the apartment story,” wrote Dallagnol in a group Telegram chat with his colleagues on September 9, 2016, four days before filing their indictment against Lula. “These are points in which we have to have solid answers and on the tips of our tongues.”
...
Car Wash prosecutors used the article as evidence that the triplex belonged to the presidential family, but indicted and convicted Lula on a triplex in a different building — demonstrating that the investigation was imprecise on the central point of their case: identifying the bribe that Lula allegedly received from the contractor.

"Justice" in Brazil:

The ruling was quickly upheld unanimously by an appeals court and the sentence was extended to 12 years and one month. In an interview, the president of the appeals court characterized Moro’s decision as “just and impartial” before later admitting that he had not yet obtained access to the underlying evidence in the case. One of the three judges on the panel was an old friend and classmate of Moro’s.

Until now, most of the evidence necessary to evaluate the motives and internal beliefs of the Car Wash task force and Moro remained secret. Reporting on this archive now finally enables the public — in Brazil and internationally — to evaluate both the validity of Lula’s conviction and the propriety of those who worked so tirelessly to bring it about.
 
hamper the same old corrupt elite from continuing to have total control over Brazil
He just had a new corrupt elite and was not splitting the money the right way, but that is regarding political elites… well, if we disregard the fact that PT had a silent partner, PMDB, all along, which still retains power.

Having the odd decade or two of experience of continuously living under such clownish regimes I have my own explanation, which is that those corrupt élites allowed PT to get away with a tiny bit of redistribution because it meant they were making hand over fist both legally and illegally and once the easy money dried up and the system's inherent unsustainability caught up with it (read: the ridiculous boom in commodity prices, especially cash crops, went bust, e.g. soybeans' international price nearly halved) then Lula, Dilma, etc. could be safely disposed of when enough of the populace ceased supporting them. Then they could be replaced with a Trump-like figure that has already managed a record in deforestation in the Amazon, increased racial, sexual, etc. bigotry/hatred, the odd environmental-industrial mining disaster and so forth.
What gives it away is that Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff's instances of corruption are ridiculously small compared to those of their vice-president and successor Michel Temer and the Congress which ousted Rousseff and still retains power.

But it's not as if PT had been much of a bunch of socialists. Capitalism simply thrived. Odebrecht's transnational corruption scheme was certainly not hindered by PT.
 
The irony being that Lula was the best for capitalism that Brazil has ever had.

I'm afraid that capitalism won't fall just because a more reactionary regime will usher in an economic crisis.

Also, the wealthy usually put more value in their wealth translation to domination, power over other people, than in simply amassing wealth. Meaning they'll enjoy more being somewhat less wealthy in a country with high inequality than getting richer but losing part of their privileged position in society. That is why the hated Lula so much: Brazil was doing good but the poorer masses of the population were "getting uppity".
 
I'm afraid that capitalism won't fall just because a more reactionary regime will usher in an economic crisis.

Also, the wealthy usually put more value in their wealth translation to domination, power over other people, than in simply amassing wealth. Meaning they'll enjoy more being somewhat less wealthy in a country with high inequality than getting richer but losing part of their privileged position in society. That is why the hated Lula so much: Brazil was doing good but the poorer masses of the population were "getting uppity".


Well, sure. That's the way conservatives are. No conservative is ever in favor of sound economic policy. And you're right about the reason: It's more important to have a larger share of a smaller pie than it is to maximize the size of the pie, or even the actual quantity of one's own wealth.

Hiring a conservative to run capitalism is like hiring a convicted serial child rapist to run a boarding school. You know going in that the outcome is going to be a disaster. But you do it anyways. Because, conservatism.
 
Well, sure. That's the way conservatives are. No conservative is ever in favor of sound economic policy. And you're right about the reason: It's more important to have a larger share of a smaller pie than it is to maximize the size of the pie, or even the actual quantity of one's own wealth.

Hiring a conservative to run capitalism is like hiring a convicted serial child rapist to run a boarding school. You know going in that the outcome is going to be a disaster. But you do it anyways. Because, conservatism.
Might want to lay off the blanket statements, because I think de Gaulle and Macmillan would be very surprised to discover they were not 'conservative'.
 
Might want to lay off the blanket statements, because I think de Gaulle and Macmillan would be very surprised to discover they were not 'conservative'.


And in what way were they in favor of sound economic policy?
 
Admittedly, I'm less familiar with the particulars of de Gaulle's (and the Gaullist in general) system of dirigisme, but Macmillan maintained much of Labour's welfare state and state industrial policies and ran it alongside a One Nation Tory program focusing on domestic stability, economic growth, consumer confidence, and low unemployment.
 
I just came in to lose my mind spelling VE??EZUUAMMLLA !!!!
Admittedly, I'm less familiar with the particulars of de Gaulle's (and the Gaullist in general) system of dirigisme, but Macmillan maintained much of Labour's welfare state and state industrial policies and ran it alongside a One Nation Tory program focusing on domestic stability, economic growth, consumer confidence, and low unemployment.
But then I saw De Gaulle and I'll tell you he was a lot more radical than Lula. He'd be deemed a terrorist-ultra nowadays and no bank in their own mind would lend him the shadow of a penny. Arguably the most dangerous leftist Western Europe has known post-war and yes, he was a right-wing conservative at the time. How the words change meaning over time, fabulous. Oh, and you know why ? Because he wanted national union.
 
Admittedly, I'm less familiar with the particulars of de Gaulle's (and the Gaullist in general) system of dirigisme, but Macmillan maintained much of Labour's welfare state and state industrial policies and ran it alongside a One Nation Tory program focusing on domestic stability, economic growth, consumer confidence, and low unemployment.

he's what I call a CHINO, Chonservative In Name Only
 
Back
Top Bottom