Hacker News Reader

Comment by sizeofchar | Hacker News Reader

Your second paragraph is ideological gibberish. Brazil was always miles distant from leading BRICS, which is merely a buzzword to captivate through vanity the minds of theirs political elites.

By playing international influence game, the workers party managed to overflow Brazilian market with cheap and unfairly produced Chinese industrial goods, paying for it by selling most of our mineral commodities and committing with money-sink international projects with African dictatorships.

At the same time, the aforementioned party gave billions of dollars in infrastructure projects throughout Latin America bolivarian states, that without a doubt won't make returns in any way.

If that is what you call "international influence", I'm relieved we gave it up.

View on HN

> At the same time, the aforementioned party gave billions of dollars in infrastructure projects throughout Latin America bolivarian states, that without a doubt won't make returns in any way.

First and foremost, the money went to Brazilian companies that built that infrastructure.

Second, it was a loan that has to be paid back by those governments.

Third, the loan is covered by insurance.

> First and foremost, the money went to Brazilian companies that built that infrastructure.

In every loan that got investigated, the money seems to have gone into corrupt politicians pockets, both inside and outside of Brazil.

Not only this, but even if the money comes back anyhow (and I am casting doubt on it, never heard of any insurances) all the international influence built will be lost, because it was done specifically for the parties of some countries supporting tyrants.

There was no plan for Brazilian international relevance, but a plan for colluded political parties, to disintegrate nationalities.

Your reply seems equally ideological to me. The reality is that it's a complex situation, and that there is a non-trivial political concession in dropping reciprocity.

I think dropping it makes sense, because pragmatically the damage outweighs the benefits. But simplistic, partisan tarring of existing policy doesn't help us learn anything new.

What is ideological about my statements? There are only facts with named actors in it. Or simply by casting the wrong names makes it be tagged ideological?

> money-sink international projects with African dictatorships.

You mean like those projects that China funds to successfully increase their international relevance and financial prosperity? Like all the ports and plants and railways?

That’s it! For the Chinese they were great. What was gained by Brazil, if not some temporary seats on some international bureaucracy, with hardly any Brazilian commons ever hearing of it?

Lol. I am talking about "stance" and "goals" of political parties on that paragraph, there's not even my opinion on which is better. You either have a reading impairment or are just plain trolling.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com