Silva elected in Brazil

[Sultan Bhargash]

"Economic colonialism crap" - interesting way of putting it. It is not "zero sum" (nice try, mr. beautiful mind) to state the case that in the wake of political decolonization, economic colonialism has remained in place. It is no historical accident that decolonization took place largely after the IMF was establish, or that the same IMF that "worked" in rebuilding Europe did not work in building the third world.

I am better versed in East African history than Brazilian, so I will give you the example there (one which I have simplified without distorting the essence): besides and before the gem mine industry, Tanzania had one thing that could be sold for foreign cash: coffee. In Tanz and Kenya, the best farming land which once supported a diversity of nutritious food crops was taken during colonialism to serve as coffee plantations. People still had to eat, so they switched to growing maize, which doesn't need good land but also doesn't provide remotely the nutrition of the old staples. Why do you need foreign currency? WHy does any country need foreign currency? To service debt is the only answer- if they could pay in their own currency they would just print the money. So eliminate the middle channels and the picture you get is: 3rd world country gives its lucrative goods away (distorting the local economy/ecology in the process) in order to 'pay debt'.

Now that would be fine if the debt was for things useful to the local well being. But by and large, IMF projects fail, and they fail by design. The IMF money that goes to Tanzania, is used to pay a German or Dutch or Swedish or Japanese company to build a fishery or a hydroelectric dam etc. The money ends up right back in the west. The project is implemented with little or no regard to the local situation and so as soon as the dam is finished and the engineers go home, no one is ready to keep it going in the host country - and if they could, they would still need more foreign currency to build the foreign parts.

This is why a Nyerere style (near Maoist without the eccentricities) agrarian socialism is the last best hope for impoverished countries. And why defaulting on IMF loans is neither a crime or a sin but virtually a civic responsibility of forward thinking third world leaders. And sharpe- America doesn't have to worry about ever defaulting on its loans. It is the prime mover of world economy and can always juggle things to its advantage. And sooner or later, democrats will be back in the WHite House and our latest republican deficit will be balanced away and consumer confidence will return and our economy will boom again!

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
Why do you need foreign currency? WHy does any country need foreign currency? To service debt is the only answer- if they could pay in their own currency they would just print the money.

Not if they hope to keep inflation in check, or have a stable enough local currency that people who actually have money will want to keep it in the country.
And I'm guessing foreign currency is really useful for buying foreign goods, and debt payment is actually a fraction of its use.

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
So eliminate the middle channels and the picture you get is: 3rd world country gives its lucrative goods away (distorting the local economy/ecology in the process) in order to 'pay debt'.

You don't get debt like you get the cold.
I'm not going to explain from square one how specialization helps economic growth.
But I will ask how you convince farmers to grow a crop that pays them half as much for the 'good of the people'?
Force them, or throw them off their land. Both policies I'm sure you'd find attrocious were it to happen to, say, you.

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
Now that would be fine if the debt was for things useful to the local well being. But by and large, IMF projects fail, and they fail by design.

I don't believe you.
Prove it. Compile a list of all projects the IMF funds in a country or over a period of time, create a standard of success/failure, then judge each project by the criteria.
Then stake your claim.

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
The IMF money that goes to Tanzania, is used to pay a German or Dutch or Swedish or Japanese company to build a fishery or a hydroelectric dam etc.

Would you prefer they be Tanzanian?

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
The project is implemented with little or no regard to the local situation

The IMF doesn't dictate projects, it only advises. The domestic government is the recipient and expenditure of the funds; if they're being mishandled (as they almost certainly are), then lay the blame with those who dole out the funds, and not those that gave it away.
I know, its much easier to blame the IMF.

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
This is why a Nyerere style (near Maoist without the eccentricities) agrarian socialism is the last best hope for impoverished countries.

Last, best hope for what? Returning to the dark ages of economics???

Where in God's name did you pick up the idea that Khmer Rouge economics actually helps anyone? The mass success of agrarian economies at improving the standard of living? The countless successes of socialist policies at prompting economic growth???

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
And why defaulting on IMF loans is neither a crime or a sin but virtually a civic responsibility of forward thinking third world leaders.

Civic responsibility? The money freed up going to debt payments would be a mere fraction of that which they would loose in capital flight and investment cancellations.
And most likely, they store large sums of money in foreign accounts (for stabilities sake, their inflation tends to be high because of things like printing too much money) would easily suck away a nice chunk of the debt payment.
That is short term thinking if I've ever seen it.

 

[Gerard]

Seriously, The IMF and the Argentina situation (the results of IMF politics) had been an important point in the Lula's victory.

 

[ozscott75]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
One thing I forgot to mention about Lula. He wants to default on Brazil's foreign debt. Could you imagine if the United States would try to do this?

Yes, imagine all the problems if the US had huge international debts they refused to pay.

 

[FredLC]

Hmmmm... I adressed the matter of international debt once, Talking to our gentle moderator Mr. AoA, in a thread of my design called "Reasons for the crashing in the WTC". Here is the link.

I'll reproduce the contents here. I certainly will add more to that latter, because i'm posting it before attenting to a class so my time window is very small in this moment.

Alcibiaties:

Here is what you said:

-----------------------------------------------------------

World debt...you mean money given on the promise it will be used responcibly and eventually repaid?
I grow weary of people who constanly have their hands in my pocket, and I for one, want the money back.
If they couldn't repay, they shouldn't have borrowed it in the first place.
This goes back to personal responciblity.
As an American taxpayer with a family, every penny of my money given to another nation (most of which are ingrates who demand more and continually default) gauls me no end.
How about we tend to the USA, and they can tend to their own nations.
The EU can afford the burden of the third world, the USA can no longer, our economy cannot handle it anymore.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I’d agree with you entirely, if it wasn’t for the fact that money borrowed between nations cannot be compared with money borrowed between individuals.

Between individuals, I agree, it’s a very simple thing. People will lend money for family ties, friendship or interest. And they will want it back. Period. That’s all, folks.

Nations, on the other hand, have a much larger array of interests going on than merely the flux of the money.

First of all, saying that “if a nation can’t pay, it shouldn’t have asked for it” is a simplification. Many times, a poor nation asks for help to deal with catastrophic situations that requires immediate solutions. It does not have the option “ah, let the society collapse to keep our finances in order”.

Basically, they change certain death for probable death. So, it’s not exactly lack of responsibility, but a necessary act.

Also, unlike individuals, nations can’t effectively hide their economical situations. Everybody in the world knows who is doing well and who is not. So, when a nation lends money to another that can’t pay, it knows very well what it is doing. Just see the example of what is happening in Argentina.

An individual wouldn’t do it (lend money that he is unlikely to see coming back), unless for strongly emotional ties that makes the money unimportant.

As for nations, even with such money effectively helping in a humanitarian way, it’s not given. It’s expected to be repaid, what’s really fair to the citizens of such country, as you put it.

But why do they take that “chance”?

Because, being in debt, the other country is in a situation of inferiority that is self-sustained even after the worst moment of the crises is over. It’s a good way to put some pressure In that country when it is needed for any reasons.

Example: What Brazil owe to USA, could only be paid with almost 50% more than its total production over a whole year. However, it’s less than what USA expend with its army, alone.

Now, of course Brazil, that works hard to have a surplus each year, can’t give up all it’s incomes for an year and a half to pay debts, under the risk of experiencing the collapse of it’s structure. So it have to keep paying just interest, year after year, without being able to get rid of a penny of the main amount.

If somehow Brazil manages to pay it, on the other hand, little or no difference will be noticed within USA financial planning.

So, when debates are made about themes like “the interests of the pharmaceutical industries and the natural resources of Amazon”, or “internal mechanisms of protection for the national industries against the free commerce between countries”, there’s always that implicit threat… “have it our way or get ready to pay”.

Now, I’m saying that USA is not legitimate to get back the money it have given? NO.

What I’m saying is that keeping things the way they are proved to be much more interesting and profitable.

So, although I agree a lot with many things of your intervention, I wanted to disprove the simplicity of how you described international debts.

Regards .

One thing i'd like to add now, tough, because I always regreted that I didn't mentioned it in that opportunity.

Leaders, they come and go. And many times they do stupid things, and it's thae nation that will be around to deal with the consequences that will come back to haunt us.

Many times our possibility of growth is crippled by that. It's the example of what I said about we being forced, by the acceptance of our king, to pay Portugal's debts, or by the huge debt created by the freaking military government, that didn't have the endorsement of the people to act in such irresponsible manner.

Ok, further elaborations and comments will have to wait a few hours.

Regards .

 

[Jorge]

Originally posted by nixon

One has brought forth numbers and statistics regarding the economic situation in Chile, pre- and post-Allende, illuminating very clearly the economic balance.

So, you justify coup d'etats, assassinations, repression and lack of liberty for economic reasons !!


May I ask you something?

What is a man life worth? How many people can I kill if in exchange I make the economy grow?

What is the price of liberty? Would you allow your president to cut some of your liberties if he gets some more dollars for you?

 

[Akka]

I'm afraid that Brazilians have just not yet understood the concept of democracy, and their last election clearly shows it.

The idea that a people get the leader it wishes is a completely irrealistic utopian marxist dream that threatens the very basis of the world.
The point of democracy is to elect a right-winged president to get the blessing of USA.
If a left-winged president is elected, then it's a proof that democracy has failed, hence justifying the overthrowing of the government by the CIA to save democracy and restore its true goal.

These red thugs just never learn.

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by Jorge
So, you justify coup d'etats, assassinations, repression and lack of liberty for economic reasons !!

You could justify Hitler 'economically.' Perhaps nixon wants to make a case for that next.

 

[tonberry]

Originally posted by nixon


One has persistently debated the Allende issue, but one will reinforce the major shortcomings, and general lacks of proper economic coordination. When Allende seized power, the first thing he did was to nationalize the enormous income sources of the country, notably mines, foreign banks, massive land reforms and made huge 'redistributions' of wages.

You can't even admit that he was elected?

 

[amadeus]

Oops, it sounds like Lula is now going to honor Brazil's debt.

It sounds like Lula isn't as far left as he was made out to be during his campaign. I imagine he knows that foreign investment will go way down if he becomes a Chavez-esque president.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by tonberry


You can't even admit that he was elected?

Haven't you read the definition of democracy ?
If it's left-wing, it can't be elected. It can only seize power in an undemocratic manner.

 

[Switch625]

Originally posted by Akka


Haven't you read the definition of democracy ?
If it's left-wing, it can't be elected. It can only seize power in an undemocratic manner.

Your previous post to this one was sarcasm, which I can respect even if I don't agree with it.

This post is just trolling. You're better than that, and you also are smart enough to know that right-extremists like Nixon can't be used as a yardstick to judge the attitudes of the average American.

You are better off ignoring him, rather than stooping to his level.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by FredLC
I'll reproduce the contents here. I certainly will add more to that latter, because i'm posting it before attenting to a class so my time window is very small in this moment.

I think the weakness in the borrowed arguement is you're essentially implying the U.S. can afford to have its debts ignored. The truth of that statement is entirely irrelevant; if it was philanthropy we were interested in, it wouldn't have been a loan. Remember that the funds being lent are almost entirely private, and that the people who would loose the money aren't the same ones who could see a huge cut in military spending to get repaid... it becomes more like forced philanthropy, which would look a lot like stealing on an individual level.

Originally posted by FredLC
Leaders, they come and go. And many times they do stupid things, and it's thae nation that will be around to deal with the consequences that will come back to haunt us.

Funny that the U.S. never gets a bye on that.

Originally posted by FredLC
Many times our possibility of growth is crippled by that. It's the example of what I said about we being forced, by the acceptance of our king, to pay Portugal's debts, or by the huge debt created by the freaking military government, that didn't have the endorsement of the people to act in such irresponsible manner.

Debt cancellation does happen, not all too infrequently either. Especially with many of the misallocated funds that ended up paying for social services so the government could build a bigger army.
The problem is, they borrowed to pay for X. Then they borrowed to pay for the loan on X. Two decades and five creditors later, its really hard to find out where the money went in the first place
If individual handled their finances like governments, we'd all be bankrupt.

 

[JoeM]

Greadius,

Although I disagree with your general sentiment you seem to believe that loans do not cripple countries, but could help them to achieve economic stability and thereby improve the lot of the common man. Are there any real-world examples of this *actually* happening?

Also, your comment

"Would you prefer they be Tanzanian?"

I believe the point of obtaining a loan is to boost the *local* economy. If the money is spent on local companies, who in turn pay local taxes and local workers then the money stays within the local economy and we can expect to see an improvement.

 

[Gerard]

Originally posted by Switch625
You're better than that, and you also are smart enough to know that right-extremists like Nixon can't be used as a yardstick to judge the attitudes of the average American.

It is really a good new for us. Seriously. I'm not trolling. You probably don't know but in mostly Latin America, the people think about the US people as Bart Simpsons with the rmsharpe ideas. I don't think this way, but is good to read it.

 

[FredLC]

Originally posted by Greadius
Somehow I doubt the Silva government will be any help in this regards.

That you should not do. What do you know about Lula? Get to know him, than speak about expectations.

Originally posted by Greadius
I think the use of nuclear weapons is revolting, not their existance.
The current nuclear stalemate is what keeps the weapons in check. Do you honestly believe the U.S. unilaterally abandoning its arsenal would make nuclear war less likely?

(…)

Once a country has them they get a completely different treatment.

Yes, the fear of mutual destruction keeps those monstrosities in check. Another solution would be to end them all.

Please not that I’m not referring to USA only. I mean that ALL nukes should be dismantled. The only reason why USA was mentioned over other nations containing warheads is that the poster of the original criticism for a possible Brazilian ICBM program was a citizen of USA.

I admit that the argument that you cannot give up your nukes while other still have them is valid to some extent. But following the same lines, if it were true that we are planning to build nukes, we would be covered by the same excuse – potential enemies have them, so shall we.

That makes the policy of “non-proliferation on other countries” so hypocritical.

Originally posted by Greadius
That would assume all national governments are equally as rational, constrained by domestic forces, and in position of risk incurment.
All countries are not equal. Personally, I wouldn't feel in any more danger if Germany, Iceland, Japan, South Korea, and a few others developed nuclear weapons. I know they wouldn't (mis)use them (under current circumstances).

And tell me, who possess the mandate to decide which governments are rational enough? USA?

Originally posted by Greadius
Resembles treaties of disarmament made with the former Soviet Union, but the problems of those treaties became painfully apparent when we realized more nations were joining, or preparing to join, the nuclear club.
The main problem would be, of course, the good faith agreement it would be based upon. The U.S. was continiously suckered by such agreements during the Cold War, and inspectors have proven useless than and in other circumstances (Iraq, North Korea).
Simply, the nations that truly need to abide to such a pact can't be trusted to maintain it. Its flawed because the enforcement of the treaty relies upon the one thing the treaty was designed to avoid.

So, once you admit that the tactical and moral relevance of those weapons is indispensable, it’s either naive to ask them not to build them or imperialistic to force them not to.

The inescapable matter here is that every nation knows just how vulnerable it is against those weapons if they don’t have the power to retaliate. You are right when you say that a nation that possess them has a completely different treatment.

So, as long as one nation has them, others also will want them. And their reasons will be as valid as yours.

As long as countries goes by your logic, we will never have a world free of nukes.

Originally posted by Greadius
I think the weakness in the borrowed arguement is you're essentially implying the U.S. can afford to have its debts ignored. The truth of that statement is entirely irrelevant; if it was philanthropy we were interested in, it wouldn't have been a loan. Remember that the funds being lent are almost entirely private, and that the people who would loose the money aren't the same ones who could see a huge cut in military spending to get repaid... it becomes more like forced philanthropy, which would look a lot like stealing on an individual level.

Not really.

First of all, USA can afford to live without the landed money. It’s doing it right now, or the money wouldn’t have being lend to begin with. But I agree with you that it is irrelevant, because I stated in that argument that I was not suggesting that the money should not be paid.

The core of my argument is that those loans follow an agenda.

You say it is not philanthropy, and I agree. But you have to admit that it is not about the obvious profit of interest, too, because the debts are obviously not payable, and those who grant that loans are very well aware of it. They are so not payable that countries in debt manage only to deal with interests. Can you give one that is actually getting rid of the main amount?

And there are, in fact, loans that are actually made government to government. But the fact that many of them come from private funds makes little or no difference in this point. The people that has that sort of capital (money in the order of billions of dollars) are the ones that possesses huge amount of influence in governmental policies, as well as are the ones that will benefit from the accomplishment of the mentioned agenda.

I said once about Amazon X pharmaceutical industries, and about commerce X national import barriers. Well, guess who are the owners of the labs and multinationals?

Originally posted by Greadius
Funny that the U.S. never gets a bye on that.

Hmmmm... its true, US, as a nation, is not to blame by the bad calls of it’s leaders.

So far, however, the only consequence that I am aware that US is suffering is an exaggerated criticism in some instances. It’s very, very not comparable with the misery that Brazilian people experience when our surplus is sent abroad to pay debts.

Also, noticed that I only complained about the decisions made by illegitimate and uncommitted governments, like the rule of a Portuguese Noble, or the military tyrants. Not once I complained about bad calls made by the representative of the people. When that is the situation, I believe we are to blame of “culpa in eligendo” (guilty in selecting), and cannot say that we are not responsible for such calls too.

Now, just for how long are USA citizens picking their representatives? In Brazil it will be 12 years in two months.

Originally posted by Greadius
Debt cancellation does happen, not all too infrequently either. Especially with many of the misallocated funds that ended up paying for social services so the government could build a bigger army.
The problem is, they borrowed to pay for X. Then they borrowed to pay for the loan on X. Two decades and five creditors later, its really hard to find out where the money went in the first place
If individual handled their finances like governments, we'd all be bankrupt.

Really? I never heard of one. Hopefully, they will grant a cancellation to Brazil as a gesture of good faith to our new president.

And yes, it is what we call “debit rolling”, and I agree that it is terribly pernicious.

But question yourself why does the international mechanisms keeps granting those loans. After all, it’s not like nations can hide their incapability to pay.

Regards .

 

[FredLC]

Originally posted by Gerard


It is really a good new for us. Seriously. I'm not trolling. You probably don't know but in mostly Latin America, the people think about the US people as Bart Simpsons with the rmsharpe ideas. I don't think this way, but is good to read it.

You are right, Gerard. It's really silly, but I hear a lot that "the average american is dumb".

It shows how there is stupid people everywhere.

I agree with you 100% on this.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by JoeM
Although I disagree with your general sentiment you seem to believe that loans do not cripple countries, but could help them to achieve economic stability and thereby improve the lot of the common man. Are there any real-world examples of this *actually* happening?

Kind of.
The problem is its never that simple. The idea of the IMF and World Bank are to stabilize the market for investors, who want to help & make money at the same time. They've almost undoubtedly improved the lot in life of the common man in most circumstances. What we are learning though is that local conditions can be a lot more influential than giant gobs of money in determining the economic result of a country.
For example, how does one calculate the economic impact of the African AIDS epidemic?

All countries with stable regimes have had a decent borrowing record and results (Botswana, for example). But the ones that have shown fiscal mismanagement in the past are probably worse off today, yet the blame to the IMF is just a funnel away from the domestic governments that made bad decisions and would have made bad decisions regardless of the IMFs presence.

The system wasn't designed as an answer, but a way of helping potential answers. I'll agree its success is muddled, but I think the factors that dampen that aren't under the control of the IMF.

Its better than nothing, and more realistic than utopian blank checks (probably better results too).

Originally posted by JoeM
I believe the point of obtaining a loan is to boost the *local* economy. If the money is spent on local companies, who in turn pay local taxes and local workers then the money stays within the local economy and we can expect to see an improvement.

No doubt about it. If the local government wants to do _____, the IMF loans them money to do it. Alright, fine and dandy, at that point the decision is made on whom they pay to do it. There is no guarantee that a local company is capable of doing it, or can do it better/cheaper than foreign competition.
If you want to get into the root causes of that, understand the decision making of the local government behind the projects they undertake and their hiring process.
The IMF plays no role in choosing contractors.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by FredLC
Yes, the fear of mutual destruction keeps those monstrosities in check. Another solution would be to end them all.

In a perfect world.

Originally posted by FredLC
I admit that the argument that you cannot give up your nukes while other still have them is valid to some extent. But following the same lines, if it were true that we are planning to build nukes, we would be covered by the same excuse – potential enemies have them, so shall we.

I would ask what nuclear threat is posed on Brazil, but I have the feeling you'd just blame us.
I would suggest, however, that the U.S. has provided a consistant blanket of nuclear protection to states like Japan & Germany that ensure they're equivical nuclear protection without the need to develop these arms yourself.
The lack of an impending invasion or attack involving nuclear weapons on Brazil means there is a lack of the same kind of policy, but I would suggest if a beligerant, nuclear armed (Communist, just for good measure ) Argentina (Just for example) were to arise, the need for domestic nuclear protection could be forgone in exchange for guaranteed blanket protection.

Originally posted by FredLC
That makes the policy of “non-proliferation on other countries” so hypocritical.

You lost me on that one.
So you agree that since multilateral simultaneous disarmament isn't going to happen, its safer that there are reciprical consequences for its use.
You agree that the more countries that get nuclear weapons, the higher the chance of their use is.

Yet you put those both together and come up with a hypocritical policy.
What is the more 'consistent' alternative that still addresses both of those problems?

Originally posted by FredLC
And tell me, who possess the mandate to decide which governments are rational enough? USA?

Nobody does. It is a completely subjective criteria placed before the scrutiny of the individual examiner.
What creates a mandate in the real world is subjectivity + power.

Originally posted by FredLC
So, once you admit that the tactical and moral relevance of those weapons is indispensable, it’s either naive to ask them not to build them or imperialistic to force them not to.

I don't see what is imperialistic about it.
I'd definately put it more into the naive catagory. The types of agreements we've made in regards to nuclear weapons over the past few decades have had one sided results against our benefits.
But use your own judgement: Was N. Korea's 'promise' not to develop in exchange for the amount of wealth we bribed them with to keep the promise imperialistic or naive?

Originally posted by FredLC
As long as countries goes by your logic, we will never have a world free of nukes.

Precisely.
Its not my logic. I didn't make the world, I just try to explain it.

However, the appeal of nuclear weapons is directly proportional to the potentail benefits the trump card could be place. Brazil and North Korea are in very different strategic situations.

Originally posted by FredLC
First of all, USA can afford to live without the landed money.

Macro or micro. We don't pool our wealth. There are still a lot of individuals who'll get blanket screwed by such an action and Uncle Sam's bottomless pockets isn't going to do anything to help them.

Originally posted by FredLC
But you have to admit that it is not about the obvious profit of interest, too, because the debts are obviously not payable, and those who grant that loans are very well aware of it.

No, I don't agree. What other than the profit motive could prompt individuals to pool their money and lend away?
The lenders do still make their money (although not as much as they could if it worked out as planned).
Plus you're implying there is 'another' agenda here that I'm curious to hear though I'm fairly certain it'll involved a conspiracy to keep the poor down so the rich can stay rich (or some sort of zero-sum, absolute wealth, they hate the poor diatrabe).

Originally posted by FredLC
They are so not payable that countries in debt manage only to deal with interests. Can you give one that is actually getting rid of the main amount?

Botswana.
Taiwan, for examlpe, has developed into a creditor nation.
But it isn't about being debt free, it is about managing the debt effectively.

Originally posted by FredLC
And there are, in fact, loans that are actually made government to government. But the fact that many of them come from private funds makes little or no difference in this point. The people that has that sort of capital (money in the order of billions of dollars) are the ones that possesses huge amount of influence in governmental policies, as well as are the ones that will benefit from the accomplishment of the mentioned agenda.

You didn't actually explain the 'agenda'
And your logic is completely superfluous and treats the entire U.S. governmental entity (factions, parties, and interests aside) and the entire U.S. financial entity (individuals and interests aside) as one huge glob of money that can be poked away at with impunity.

For example, it is entirely possible that I'll end up working for this type of agency within a year. Assuming 6 months later there is a massive rejection for debt repayment because we can afford it, it is also entirely possible that the giant debtor agency needs to 'restructure', which starts with layoffs (basically because there are no more debts, there isn't anything for me to do anymore). So here I am unemployed, but that is okay because the U.S. is a wealthy nation.
Are you sure that is fair?

Originally posted by FredLC
So far, however, the only consequence that I am aware that US is suffering is an exaggerated criticism in some instances. It’s very, very not comparable with the misery that Brazilian people experience when our surplus is sent abroad to pay debts.

I wasn't comparing them. I made the point primarily because of the amount of exaggerated critisism that one can witness here.

Originally posted by FredLC
Also, noticed that I only complained about the decisions made by illegitimate and uncommitted governments, like the rule of a Portuguese Noble, or the military tyrants. Not once I complained about bad calls made by the representative of the people. When that is the situation, I believe we are to blame of “culpa in eligendo” (guilty in selecting), and cannot say that we are not responsible for such calls too.

I would like debt forgiveness if it were structured around 'illegimate' lendings such as that. However, its difficult to determine precisely where that debt starts. Plus, a dam built by a military junta is still a dam that (hopefully) the country would need anyway. You can argue something better could have been done with the money, but it doesn't mean there is no benefit being gained.

Originally posted by FredLC
Now, just for how long are USA citizens picking their representatives? In Brazil it will be 12 years in two months.

Fairly? About forty years. To some degree for a few hundread.

Originally posted by FredLC
Really? I never heard of one.

Yes, to Angola, Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Kenya, Lao PDR, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Niger, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Vietnam, and Zambia.

Brazil is just getting more loans, which to financial experts and me is more delay of the inevitable collapse.

Originally posted by FredLC
But question yourself why does the international mechanisms keeps granting those loans. After all, it’s not like nations can hide their incapability to pay.

I have no idea. I think, realistically, they believe if they can fend off the structural collapse they'll loose less money.
I don't know if their right or not, and the only way we will know is if the Brazilian economy collapses anyway.

 

[Akka]

Your previous post to this one was sarcasm, which I can respect even if I don't agree with it.

This post is just trolling. You're better than that, and you also are smart enough to know that right-extremists like Nixon can't be used as a yardstick to judge the attitudes of the average American.

You are better off ignoring him, rather than stooping to his level.

I've always been an optimistic with the human nature.
I can't help but hope that one day, some of the extremists here will just understand how they contradict themselves. Sarcasm is a very effective way of showing these contradictions and hypocrisis.

And on the other hand, I don't see where I judged the attitude of the averaga american here

Though it's not a bad thing to remind people that a left-wing government is actually CHOSEN by people from time to time