Portuguese
Vassalising Spain
US - 270 million
Brazil - 170 million
Lula - 52 million
Bush - 48 million
Just a curiousity, though...
Brazil - 170 million
Lula - 52 million
Bush - 48 million
Just a curiousity, though...
Silva elected in Brazil
- Thread starter amadeus
- Start date
Sultan Bhargash
Trickster Reincarnated
You should be optimistic, Akka. I was a militaristic, industrial capitalist Republican when I was a teenager (it was the "Just Say No", Alex Keaton, Ronbo Reagan era), and I really believed the party lines because I had never seen with my own eyes things like racism, poverty, etc. Kind of living like the Buddha while he was merely a sheltered prince.
And then I went to college, and I learned that horrible things like racism, pollution, injustice, etc. really existed. I stayed republican though till after the Gulf War (I've repeated that story endless).
I learned, but not enough. I became an extremist on the other end of the spectrum, something which these threads have only recently weaned me away from. Neither side is telling the whole truth (and don't think the middle is either!). It is nice to come to these forums and see individuals being actualized.
Greadius- I know you want me to compile massive projects in my defense but instead I recommend you of all people (and the rest of you) read David Korten's "When Corporations Rule the World", an excellent analysis of the World Bank/IMF/third world poverty cycle problem by an insider. I saw first hand all over east africa the many failed IMF projects. You can blame the leaders who mishandle the loans but that doesn't excoriate the loaners who expect repayment at the expense of whole peoples.
Originally posted by Greadius
In a perfect world.
( )
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
Hehehehe... as we are all so interested in cheap shots, I cant resist to quote the character Dr. Eleanor Arroway in Carl Sagans book Contact: I always thought the world were what we made of it.
Seriously, Greadius, you are kind of sensitive to criticism of USA. I have lost count of how many times you saw people seizing opportunities to blame the US. I am not aggressive towards your nation, I mentioned this already.
In fact, if I were discussing this with another person, I really might have used US for merely exemplificative purposes. That was, in fact, why I was so careful in saying potential enemies, and avoided mentioning any in particular. The fact is that I never intended to consider US a nuclear threat to Brazil, except perhaps in a very hypothetical manner.
Of course, equally you wouldnt feel threatened by Brazil having nukes, would you? There is no historical reason for that. But it would be equally valid our desire to build as would be your desire that we dont build. Prevention for prevention, we are as legitimate as you guys.
Just for curiosity, what are the many nuclear threats to USA? Iraq?
Pay attention to my remarks. I was not saying that USA should change its policy about nukes, at least not unilaterally. What I said is that its hypocritical to demand that no one builds nukes while possessing the biggest arsenal ever build.
Want a consistent policy? Fine, heres one: Possess and let possess.
This is probably the most perfect definition of imperialism I ever heard.
When its based on trust, its naivety. When based on military or economical strength, its imperialism. I refer back to your own words: its an imposition of your subjective decision about who may have nukes, granted by your power to accomplish it.
This is naive. Nukes have enormous strategic importance, and as long as some have it, the ones who dont will always be intimidated. Would you piss off anyone with the unilateral power of making unstoppable fire rain in your homeland?
Whatever is the difference between Brazil and N. Korea, we Brazilians are legitimated to desire the strength to be able to face any possible external threat. I, personally, dont want my nation to build nukes, the same way that I want yours to dismantle what you got. The only thing I didnt like in the original message was the suggestion that we would be rogues or terrorists if we did it.
I never brought it to an individual level. The same way that there are poor people in rich nations, there are rich people in poor nations. The two richest of all Brazilians, if Im not mistaken, are the Safra brothers, with a personal fortune of about four billion dollars.
I meant the macro stance all the time.
And again your sensitivity shows. Please notice that I mentioned agenda, not hidden agenda or evil agenda. I dont think that IMF bankers sit in the top of dark towers of fortresses of vice, drinking the blood of workers using skulls of little children as glasses and laughing at the misery of the third world (hehehe... now thats an evil description
)I am talking about capitalism here. I am pretty sure that they would be quite happy if we got rich, but I am also sure that they wont pass a profitable opportunity even at the price of generating some human cost.
As you said, the money is largely private;
That money is money of corporations, and primarily controlled by them;
Corporations conduct businesses that are related with resources all around the world;
So, keeping the nations that have possesses those resources in debt is largely more profitable than actually getting paid.
Two out of dozens. Exceptions that confirms the rule?
Now seriously, I really dont think any way of dealing debt is really perfect except getting rid of it. But I would have to evaluate the situations on those nations before I could have an opinion.
From your post, you seen to be much more informed than me about the current information of markets, so Ill just take your word about it.
I dont think it threatens the USA entities. Mostly, because the money lend is only the surplus. Whatever is essential is kept inside. Maybe that surplus is not superfluous, but its something that can be used to speculation without bringing too much attention. And that is what I am talking about.
By the way, no, I dont play a fair/not fair game here. I am not proposing that its ok that Americans citizens loose their jobs just because US is rich. Always remember that not once I brought it to an individual level its you that did it.
I want, again, to make clear that I was just stating that the situation of being in debt, and the obedience to all conditions imposed by the loaners, does cripple a nation, both in its social needs and in its perspective of growth.
I could state that the military government built a road in the Rain forest called Trans-Amazon; its huge, crossing almost the entirety of the forest, consumed millions of dollars and the life of many workers, and it links nothing to nowhere.
Those guys were parasites that used the absence of press and opposition to institute corruption in unbearable degrees. Even the things they did that were useful were built at many times its real prices and it created debts that we have to deal up until this day. So even theirs dams are not excusable.
But I wont proceed here. We agree in the important part, and the discussion about how they got to power and why they were favored with loans even being illegitimate does not belong here.
Just out of curiosity, what was unfair before?
I am taking your word here again.
Anyway, most of those nations are microscopic if compared to Brazil. If the debts are proportional, you have to agree that the ways of dealing with them cannot be compared.
And this reinforces my point about agendas.
Really, when an individual fails to honor a bank loan, the bank, that is merely interested in the profit of interest, will do most anything to get that money back, except give more money. Wasting more money in a black hole goes completely against any logic of capitalism... unless you have some other way to profit from it.
Regards
.
Hehehehe. Amazing. Except for the fact that Im an atheist and you are agnostic, we seen to agree about everything.
Agreed again. I am always amazed as how some people are able to express the same concept as I, while writing so much less.
I have to work on my concision.
Ill try to check that book, by the way.
regards
.JoeM
Imperator
I've heard (from a Brasilera) that Lula wants to kerb foreign companies basing manufacturing in Brasil. Is this true? The reasoning was that foreign employers don't pay workers a reasonable wage. This makes no sense to me, as it will just leave people unemployed.
Any informed opinions?
Also are there any changes to foreign employment laws on the cards? (I may well be moving to Brasil in the near future, no I'm not fleeing the law
)
Any informed opinions?
Also are there any changes to foreign employment laws on the cards? (I may well be moving to Brasil in the near future, no I'm not fleeing the law
)JoeM
Imperator
Greadius,
I think you've pointed out the flaw in your arguement, but correct me if I'm wrong because I'm not flaming ;
Simplistically put, your stance is that nuclear weapons are okay belonging to the US, because you are a US citizen, but not for Brazil as they are a potential enemy or at least not your country.
This is the tragedy of your arguement, although well put, it is essentially egocentric, and therefore flawed as it cannot be used to apply a principle. You can't expect to win an argument with anyone who isn't from the US with this stance...
However it *is* a reflection of current (and for the forseeable future) international politics, unfortunately in the the real world the US does win the debate with your stance, because it's words really are backed by nuclear weapons (or economic power depending on your level of cynicism). You may well congratulate your President for putting your country first, but don't turn around and be suprised that nobody else at the party actually likes him for it.
If the debating table were even and we all sat down to negotiations these things wouldn't matter, and that's where we are in this forum. You can be as nationalistic as you like (which is not the thrust of your debate, but arguably a foundation of it), it won't win the day here...
The great thing about the Brazilians is that their politics are almost always aggrarious in nature, they really don't care about who has the biggest gun in the world - you'll notice FredLC hasn't lowered himself to the level of some posters in the forums when it comes to Nationalist agenda.
Of course, I could be wrong
I think you've pointed out the flaw in your arguement, but correct me if I'm wrong because I'm not flaming
;Simplistically put, your stance is that nuclear weapons are okay belonging to the US, because you are a US citizen, but not for Brazil as they are a potential enemy or at least not your country.
This is the tragedy of your arguement, although well put, it is essentially egocentric, and therefore flawed as it cannot be used to apply a principle. You can't expect to win an argument with anyone who isn't from the US with this stance...
However it *is* a reflection of current (and for the forseeable future) international politics, unfortunately in the the real world the US does win the debate with your stance, because it's words really are backed by nuclear weapons (or economic power depending on your level of cynicism). You may well congratulate your President for putting your country first, but don't turn around and be suprised that nobody else at the party actually likes him for it.
If the debating table were even and we all sat down to negotiations these things wouldn't matter, and that's where we are in this forum. You can be as nationalistic as you like (which is not the thrust of your debate, but arguably a foundation of it), it won't win the day here...
The great thing about the Brazilians is that their politics are almost always aggrarious in nature, they really don't care about who has the biggest gun in the world - you'll notice FredLC hasn't lowered himself to the level of some posters in the forums when it comes to Nationalist agenda.
Of course, I could be wrong
What I find strange with IMF and the theories they come and give to the countries that want to borrow money, is the advice, well demands are probably more accurate. Is that the government shall reduce it's budget, spend less(less money to social programs like healthcare, schools, basic support for the low and pore) and raise taxes so that they get a surplus in the budget. They shall deregulate the market, lover taxes, toll and remove subsidies on there national industries all so they can get foreign investments.
Now if this is the magical way of getting high growth, why aren't we the western world doing this? (Yes we are regarding trade in some degree but mostly to equal countries)
Now if this is the magical way of getting high growth, why aren't we the western world doing this? (Yes we are regarding trade in some degree but mostly to equal countries)
Originally posted by JoeM
I've heard (from a Brasilera) that Lula wants to kerb foreign companies basing manufacturing in Brasil. Is this true? The reasoning was that foreign employers don't pay workers a reasonable wage. This makes no sense to me, as it will just leave people unemployed.
Any informed opinions?
Also are there any changes to foreign employment laws on the cards? (I may well be moving to Brasil in the near future, no I'm not fleeing the law
All the candidates always have expressed that they want to stimulate local industry.
However, they want to do it with incentives to the locals, not through destroying the foreign. Also, it would be really incoherent if Lula had actually suggested that. In the last months, his biggest external worry was to promise to international capital that they can rest assured that they wont be hurt in his government.
That reasoning that she gave you was false. Actually, the foreigns generally pay better. I should know, I used to work in our labor justice. She is not well informed in any of the cases.
Oh, and by the way, dont worry. As long as you get work permits (what are surprisingly easy to get, specially if you come here already employed), you have the constitutionally granted right to be treated exactly the same way a Brazilian would be. Our legal system does not admit discriminatory legislation.
Nice summary, and very well put. I hope he gets it now.
And this is why I previously mentioned imperialism. Glad Im not the only one seeing it.
First, I would like to ask exactly what is aggrarious. I never heard of that word, nor could find it in my dictionaries, or even online. Really, Id like to know.
Now, contextually speaking, it sounds like impartial. We do not unreasonably defend Brazil just because its Brazil. I at least am that way, as you noticed. But we have our share of xenophobes too.
(hehehehe... here I am, being impartial again...
)Regards
.JoeM
Imperator
Doh!
I've made some errors in English in my time but this is a howler; I meant 'gregarious' and in my use of the word i am using it to emphasise the social nature of Brazilian politics.
gre·gar·i·ous Pronunciation Key (gr-gâr-s)
adj.
Seeking and enjoying the company of others; sociable. See Synonyms at social.
Tending to move in or form a group with others of the same kind: gregarious bird species.
Gregarious is a great way to describe Brazilians per se, in my opinion, and maybe trying to define their politics that awy is stretching the words capabilities. They tend to be inclusive in their politics as opposed to the exclusive policies of more right-wing countries.
Hope I haven't tortured too many English Language experts out there
Gerard
Prince
The IMF is "fighting" with Argentina (when things seems to go well we were the "example" for the whole world; when the country crashes because the same economic politics, the IMF says "we are innocents"), the last excuse to don't agree is they (IMF) are demanding an increase in the rates of the phone, electricty, gas and water
. The IMF says they deffend the interests of the deservers (it's the good word?) of the external debt; why the IMF is reclaming a rate increase of the services? 
Gerard
Prince
Originally posted by Portuguese
US - 270 million
Brazil - 170 million
Lula - 52 million
Bush - 48 million
Just a curiousity, though...
Greadius
:yeah:
Well this is going to take a while.
My reading time is already stringently occupied.
There are dozens of books by people who are more than insiders on the opposite end of the arguement.
Have you read both sides?
I'm more concerned with explaining situations from our perspective than necessarily kneejerk defense of our actions in critisism. I don't mind it, I actually agree with much of it, but if it wasn't for me your explanation for American policy would be dependant on RMS & Nixon
Yet to what degree does Brazil have interests that are potentially contested by a nuclear neighbor? If those develop, the reasoning would be equivical. However, Brazil already dominates South America without nuclear weapons.
What would they domestically gain from it?
And we continue to dismantle our arsenal. We don't want them; keeping them is an obligation and a lesser of the two evils.
It puts every nation on earth under pressure to get them or fall behind, and greatly increases the chance of their potential use in the future.
Brazil, on the other hand, is the most powerful country in South America in any measurable way, has smaller nations on all its borders, and isn't involved in any potential territorial disputes.
Amateur...
Zero-sum arguement. Whoever controls the resources controls all the wealth.
The fact of the matter is the amount of wealth we gain from our trading partners is directly proportional to their wealth as a nation. We make more wealth off Canada than off of China.
It is in our interests that all of our trading partners have rich, vibrant economies because it means they'll offer us better, competitively priced goods while purchasing our goods.
Plus it uses the 'all corporations are partners' arguement, and assumes that because corporations do ____, and they do ____, they must be colluding on it. They are more competitive than any nationalistic interest, and so numerous that identifying a motivation for a single entity known as 'corporations' is impossible.
It would be like...treating the U.S. as a singular object.
I doubled your quota.
Although personal relations and international relations bear virtually no resemblance, personal finances and international finances does. The key to managing debt is realistic goals and limiting consumption, or 'living within your means'. If Brazil or any other debtor nations refuses to accept they can't have exentsive social programs, an attractive business setting, quality public educationa and health care, all while managing a growing economy with reasonable taxes, that isn't the IMFs fault.
Its like me blaming the credit card company because I owe them lots of money. Its not the lender that asked for it, and its not the lender that squandered it.
On minor individuals, a bank will write it off. On huge investments, they'll usually try to at least get some return on it. The logic is they loose less money this way than from a total collapse.
Only time will tell if they're right.
My reading time is already stringently occupied.
There are dozens of books by people who are more than insiders on the opposite end of the arguement.
Have you read both sides?
'eh, its a dirty job but somebody has to do it.
I'm more concerned with explaining situations from our perspective than necessarily kneejerk defense of our actions in critisism. I don't mind it, I actually agree with much of it, but if it wasn't for me your explanation for American policy would be dependant on RMS & Nixon
It has more to do with interests and protecting those interests. We needed the leverage for Europe against the Soviets, and for China still today.
Yet to what degree does Brazil have interests that are potentially contested by a nuclear neighbor? If those develop, the reasoning would be equivical. However, Brazil already dominates South America without nuclear weapons.
What would they domestically gain from it?
I think the greatest threat is nuclear armed terrorists and 'nuclear blackmail' preventing U.S. action (like a nuclear armed N.Korea). Not particularly concerned about massive exchanges of ICBMs.
The USA expends more political and financial capital to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons than any other combination of interests in the world.
And we continue to dismantle our arsenal. We don't want them; keeping them is an obligation and a lesser of the two evils.
But who gains from that policy?
It puts every nation on earth under pressure to get them or fall behind, and greatly increases the chance of their potential use in the future.
If that were true, then the objective would have been accomplished. American military and economic might is strong enough to force compliants to any demand in an imperialistic manner. But the demands were not met, which means that it wasn't economic and military force behind the demand, but trust.
Apparently everyone who disagrees with American policy takes that 'risk'
Ironically, I think North Korea is more justified in their claims. They're surounded by a growing China and a Japan that has only recently abandoned imperialistic policies. And Russia is just around the corner.
Brazil, on the other hand, is the most powerful country in South America in any measurable way, has smaller nations on all its borders, and isn't involved in any potential territorial disputes.
Not a suggestion I made, nor agree with.
That is evil?Originally posted by FredLC
Please notice that I mentioned agenda, not hidden agenda or evil agenda. I dont think that IMF bankers sit in the top of dark towers of fortresses of vice, drinking the blood of workers using skulls of little children as glasses and laughing at the misery of the third world (hehehe... now thats an evil description
Amateur...
Zero-sum arguement. Whoever controls the resources controls all the wealth.The fact of the matter is the amount of wealth we gain from our trading partners is directly proportional to their wealth as a nation. We make more wealth off Canada than off of China.
It is in our interests that all of our trading partners have rich, vibrant economies because it means they'll offer us better, competitively priced goods while purchasing our goods.
Plus it uses the 'all corporations are partners' arguement, and assumes that because corporations do ____, and they do ____, they must be colluding on it. They are more competitive than any nationalistic interest, and so numerous that identifying a motivation for a single entity known as 'corporations' is impossible.
It would be like...treating the U.S. as a singular object.
You said give me ONE example, and I actually gave two
I doubled your quota.
Well, they can't magically wish debt away (despite what the people at Jubilee say), so effectively managing it is their only option.
Although personal relations and international relations bear virtually no resemblance, personal finances and international finances does. The key to managing debt is realistic goals and limiting consumption, or 'living within your means'. If Brazil or any other debtor nations refuses to accept they can't have exentsive social programs, an attractive business setting, quality public educationa and health care, all while managing a growing economy with reasonable taxes, that isn't the IMFs fault.
Not to much attention, unless it is your money being written off as a 'too bad'.
Only to illustrate points; doesn't mean I'm taking it personally.
As it does for individuals. However, debt doesn't just happen. It takes careful planning and irresponsibility, and unrealistic prospects for the future to enter into such a debt of burden.
Its like me blaming the credit card company because I owe them lots of money. Its not the lender that asked for it, and its not the lender that squandered it.
Several issues. Most prominantly civil rights difficulties like poll tests and taxes, and the power of parties in selecting candidates. Locally (in Florida anyway), it was things like multi-member districts and non-proportional representation.
I think the analysis on a personal level here doesn't hold as true. You can't really micro this one, you really need to macro it. A bank can write off an individual, because they're essentially expendable, but Brazil is not. Brazil will always be there, and there is a lot more wealth caught up in Brazil (not loans, but real investments) that are at risk being lost.
On minor individuals, a bank will write it off. On huge investments, they'll usually try to at least get some return on it. The logic is they loose less money this way than from a total collapse.
Only time will tell if they're right.
Greadius
:yeah:
Actually, I don't even see Brazil as a potential enemy.
My fear is that nuclear weapons will take a prominant role in clouding relations between South American nations, without providing any real defensive benefit to Brazilians in exchange.
I'm not a man of principle, and am not attempting to win an arguement over the objective justification for developing nuclear weapons.
I was trying to explain the role of interests in policy positions and decision makings, and whose interests lie where, why.
My idea of 'good' countries benefit in their and our interests in a positive way in my opinion, so I have no problem with people finding this policy offensive or inconsistant (although I disagree with them).
He's not my president
People often forget I'm a member of the loyal opposition.
Anyway, I expect him to put my country first, that is his job, and described clearly and without question in the Constitutional job description.
If nobody else at the party likes him, that is their concern. Although I agree with their conclusions for the most part, I find it interesting that an internationally popular president like Clinton could have nearly identical international policy positions. The difference here is our diplomacy and your image.
This isn't a negotiating table, we aren't debating (or I wasn't... I don't think), and we still have to work within the agenda of the real world.
Idealism annoys me, so I don't like toying around with the "Perfect worlds...", I've never made an arguement based on how things ought to be.
I'm interested in mutual understanding so we're never forced to wipe Brazil off of the map. Purely altruistic, of course
In many (most even) places they do. Perhaps not Sweden, though.
But this is real world economics: there is no magical way of getting high growth, there are no free lunches, simple solutions don't exist, and the easy way never leads out.
"In many (most even) places they do. Perhaps not Sweden, though."
Tariffs and protections to the industries inside the countries are wildly used both in the USA and EU. Both have large farm subsidies as an example, which hurts a lot of third world countries. And for those that did not know Sweden had removed all (as I know) subsidies to the farms before we entered the EU, then we got them back
Frankly have nothing against, the lower the tariffs part about the demands from the IMF. If only we did it too, other vice it feels like we actually only doing it so our industries can get a hold of there market, but stop theres to do so in ours.
However, lower the budget well to cut the defence ok (if you have friendly neighbours), but the schools, health care, support for the pore and in need, police, court. That have to cost, to do the opposite I consider suicide if you want a country to develop and grow.
Tariffs and protections to the industries inside the countries are wildly used both in the USA and EU. Both have large farm subsidies as an example, which hurts a lot of third world countries. And for those that did not know Sweden had removed all (as I know) subsidies to the farms before we entered the EU, then we got them back
Frankly have nothing against, the lower the tariffs part about the demands from the IMF. If only we did it too, other vice it feels like we actually only doing it so our industries can get a hold of there market, but stop theres to do so in ours.
However, lower the budget well to cut the defence ok (if you have friendly neighbours), but the schools, health care, support for the pore and in need, police, court. That have to cost, to do the opposite I consider suicide if you want a country to develop and grow.
JoeM
Imperator
Originally posted by Greadius
He's not my president
Oh yes he is
That's democracy for you
If people find your ideas inconsistent how are they going to agree with you?
Again I'm afraid this *is* a forum for debate. If you don't want to debate why on earth are you posting? Indeed why are you debating Brazilian/IMF politics with us??
To clarify again, I *understand* your position but there's simply no point in discussing the politics of a foreign country with your current stance. I might as well say "I think the US should give all it's wealth to my country". This is a perfectly defensible stance from my point of view, and supposedly, as I put my country's concerns above all others, a valid one.
Now, your point may be a little more refined than that, but it boils down to the same thing.
Try to be objective!
Could there be a connection there?
At last Britain is trying to curb subsidies and the FR/D bed partners are blocking it preemptively
"Could there be a connection there?"
Don't think so, cuz we are trying to get rid of them again... but the farmers migth have seen that as a bonus (Can however agree with the France the UKs reduction on there check to the EU is something that should also go) At least we seam to have stopped dumping the products on the world market, instead we are paying the farmers not to produce, as they would cuz we pay them so mush to produce , lovely is it not)
Don't think so, cuz we are trying to get rid of them again... but the farmers migth have seen that as a bonus
(Can however agree with the France the UKs reduction on there check to the EU is something that should also go) At least we seam to have stopped dumping the products on the world market, instead we are paying the farmers not to produce, as they would cuz we pay them so mush to produce , lovely is it not)
Greadius
:yeah:
Average tariff rates are going down and have been going down consistantly for 30 years. In the U.S. right now they are as low as they've ever been in our history.
Agricultural subsidies is practically the last bastion holdout of protectionism, and quite a big one. Still, that isn't the crux of the point if you're attempting to analyze if wealthier nations are abiding by similar policies.
That would be inconsistant with our import/export ratio. Very inconsistant.
They still manage to undersell most agricultural products here, and any labor intensive industry is practically guaranteed to be foreign.
Wasn't my idea. Or policy.
But they can agree that it is the best alternative. Consistancy doesn't always equal better.
Debates are more violent.
This is a civilized discussion
Nope, because you'd miss the point about me trying convince you that what is best for my country happens to be what is best for your country too.
Originally posted by JoeM
Try to be objective!
Try to be realistic."Average tariff rates are going down and have been going down consistantly for 30 years. In the U.S. right now they are as low as they've ever been in our history."
Yepp, true. It's getting better, but IMHO to slow. Only becouse today is better then yeasterday does not mean it's a good day.
I want FREE trade now. (does stincy politicas that fish votes in protectionism sould be somethingsomething...)
btw throw in some sort of protecion(basic human rights or something) so people don't get used only becouse they need food.
Yepp, true. It's getting better, but IMHO to slow. Only becouse today is better then yeasterday does not mean it's a good day.
I want FREE trade now. (does stincy politicas that fish votes in protectionism sould be somethingsomething...)
btw throw in some sort of protecion(basic human rights or something) so people don't get used only becouse they need food.
I would make a point about it, but JoeM did it already, probably better than I could.
Anyway, despite Brazil is really the presently stronger nation in South America, we are not more dominant in it than US is about the world probably we are even less. You will never hear of Argentina or Uruguay or Suriname doing things because we told them to do.
Hypothetical threat. The possibility exists, but no case ever took place so one can deal with it like real and present danger. Anyway, it is as I said prevention for prevention, we are entitled to have nukes too. Who can guarantee that tomorrow a nuclear nation, or terrorist faction, wont get pissed off at us, or pick us as target, for whatever reason?
Remember the terrorist strike in that dancing club in Bali? Who could have possibly have seen that coming?
Same idea again. US dont want nukes, they keep them as a necessary precaution. But this excuse is universal. Brazil dont want nukes, but is entitled to build them as precaution.
The problem with this logic is that the falling behind process is even more inevitable if other nations dont build them. And the certainty of impunity in the event of striking with nukes is also a factor of incentive that might stimulate irresponsible owners.
Only chance of making other nations do not feel restless about the nuclear powers of some countries, and do not want to equate that power, is to establish a perfect coherence and mutual trust. But if that ever comes to happen, than nukes looses its relevance anyway.
So there you have. Either no one has them, or everybody is entitled to seek them.
At the cost of creating internal and external unpopularity. This is too much of a cost to allow a lunatic policy of prohibition. So USA will tolerate those weapons in allied and even neutral nations.
However, USA actually WILL use its strength to neutralize the efforts of anyone that it considers a potential threat.
The imminent war on Iraq has much to do with it.
Nor that I have linked to you.
Originally posted by Greadius
That is evil?
Amateur...
Oh, shoot I guess one simply cant be evil enough until he tries to kill Austin Powers Bwhahahahahahaha!!!
Originally posted by Greadius
The fact of the matter is the amount of wealth we gain from our trading partners is directly proportional to their wealth as a nation. We make more wealth off Canada than off of China.
It is in our interests that all of our trading partners have rich, vibrant economies because it means they'll offer us better, competitively priced goods while purchasing our goods.
Plus it uses the 'all corporations are partners' arguement, and assumes that because corporations do ____, and they do ____, they must be colluding on it. They are more competitive than any nationalistic interest, and so numerous that identifying a motivation for a single entity known as 'corporations' is impossible.
It would be like...treating the U.S. as a singular object.
Untrue. Brazil is LOADED with resources, but it does not have what is REALLY economically valuable the technology and the capital to process them.
That is why we sell TONS of pressed steel for a fraction of the price we pay to buy a car that does not require 10% of it to be manufactured.
I agree that the resources ARE, really, the only things with inherently value, but the CIV3 approach whoever has the monopoly of the most advanced resources is the winner is far too simplistic for real life. Economy has ways to circumvent those limitations.
Also, you are forgetting something here. Yes, you make more money from rich partners than from poor ones but not only that balance could be altered if the level of competition in the world grew too much, but it also would mean more difficulties and higher prices in the value of imported resources, thus altering the balance of profit with the rich partners.
You also forget that corporations are greedy. Or do you think that they will decide one day to let Brazil be rich so they can start recovering the losses in 20 years, when we achieve prosperity? No, they want to profit as soon as possible, and if those who are presently poor will still be that way, so be it.
Last but not least, I didnt suggest a conspiracy of megacorporations. In fact, Im recognizing their competition. As they all wants to win, they all use as invasive techniques as possible. None of them can afford to have a heart. And if the poors of the world have to pay the price, so be it again.
Lets cheer the joys of capitalism.
Nor its Brazils fault that none of those things can be left aside to favor the others. Really, they are intrinsically connected. Should we focus on economy and forget the social, things will collapse. Should we focus on social and forget economy, things will collapse too. So we fight for balance.
Now, IMF really is not guilty if we really cant achieve it today. But its a fact that it takes advantage of such fragility. So, they may lay their heads down and have the sleep of the fair... but so do the black vultures.
It would be true if it were a too bad situation. But I really already made my case about the collateral profit.
Only a few things you are forgetting; your debts are yours alone. A countrys debt will hurt a lot of people that are not irresponsible or incompetent.
Also, you assume that all debits are generated by misuse or incapacity. To disprove that, Ill give the example of the last loan Brazil took:
As a leftist candidate was leading all pools to the president chair, many investors felt scared and left the country. Also, the fear (unjustified, as our reserves are much bigger) of a repetition of the chaos in Argentina and, in a smaller scale, in Uruguay, made the investors suspicious. With so much USA currency leaving the country, we experienced an enormous growth in the relation dollar/real, that went from 2,15 : 1 to 3,95 : 1 in a matter of months, after 8 years of stability.
As many of the prices are factually indexed in dollars, it caused an enormous increase in prices of all imported products, halting the commerce and causing a series of bankrupts in small and medium stores, thus elevating unemployment.
Knowing very well that Brazil could not stand more corrosion in our currency, the government started to use the federal reserves to flood the market with dollars, to keep the values stable. But such reserves are limited, and when they begun to run low, we were at least four months away from the election. So, money was asked to avoid a more disastrous rate... what was granted at the price of taking anti-social measures that again hurt the social well being of our people.
So, as you see, it was speculation that forced us to again request assistance and further our debt. Where were irresponsibility and squandering here?
So, believe me... sometimes, people are simply run over by the circumstances.
Than NOW international capital can work in unisonous, huh? No, but seriously, money flows far easier than that. The minute that there is no more interest in Brazil, it will be a matter of weeks for the investors to cut the losses and go away. If they were committed to Brazil, it would be like you said above... they would invest to the growth of the nation to, later, have a far fatter profit... because, as you said, when dealing with rich nations, much more money shows up.
But thats simply not what happens.
Very debatable... to say the least.
Consistency always equals better when you are debating in impartial bases. Inconsistency can only be a good policy if you wish to favor one side over other... what is exactly what you are doing here.
See, not only you are assuming here that the current stalemate is sufficient to forever prevent any nuclear strikes what would really validate the idea that new nations building nukes is pointless but you are also forgetting that the only reason why you feel so comfortable with things the way they are is because US is currently the likely winner of any war it could possibly wage.
Truth is that if tomorrow Bush wakes up with a headache and decides that wiping Brazil off the map will make him feel better, we Brazilians are powerless to prevent that from happening. Now, I know that its not going to happen, but you guys have the power and potential to do that.
So, perhaps I prefer another alternative... a world that is dangerous to everyone, not just for me. Perhaps I feel safer with everyone having nukes than with just some... because everyone would really fear to use them, in a sense of survival, not only on ethics.
Now, you know that its not what I prefer... I would like to see those weapons destroyed... but since its naive and unrealistic of my part...
Well, regards
.Sultan Bhargash
Trickster Reincarnated
I agree with most of what you say, but one thing for sure:
I DO NOT WANT BRAZIL DEALING WITH NUKES!
They might try to do the "bottle dance" over them and hurt themselves!
They might fire them off to celebrate a Ronaldinho goal!
They might use them to quick clear the Amazon!
They might dismantle the uranium cores to use in acaraje!
I DO NOT WANT BRAZIL DEALING WITH NUKES!
They might try to do the "bottle dance" over them and hurt themselves!
They might fire them off to celebrate a Ronaldinho goal!
They might use them to quick clear the Amazon!
They might dismantle the uranium cores to use in acaraje!
Similar threads
