The Brazilianization of the World | Hacker News Reader

The Brazilianization of the World

americanaffairsjournal.org

123 pointsGranularRecipe41 comments

> Just look at Italian elites’ desperation to remain part of euro, despite the penury to which it subjects the country and the destruction of any future for it.

It is an absolutely false hyperbole to claim that the Euro is the cause of economic decline and the destruction of Italian future.

I was in agreement with the general premise of the article but this wild claim written as a fact makes me question all the other claims that I lack the knowledge to challenge.

It's a good article and the central point is valid, but the author shows a strong left-leaning stance that undermines it all for no good reason. Clear tells about his ideology are in his portrayal of Cardoso as a "neoliberal" and his romanticized presentation of Lula and Haddad.

And that is a shame, because a more neutral historian would clearly acknowledge that Lula (and the Worker's Party) were given the chance to lead the country into a cultural shift and finally realize a project for the country, but failed precisely because they saw themselves as the "new elites" and played the exact same kind of power games to keep themselves on top.

This, precisly this. The author's stance on the Left (as shown in his other articles and personal blog), his mention of Lava Jato as corrupt and putting FHC as neoliberal and Haddad as center-left really undermines all the writing of what could be, in the hands of a more experienced and neutral author, an interesting reflection.

For those wondering what this person means:

FHC is socialist, although center-left. Haddad is normal left, fully Marxist but not communist.

Lava Jato corruption... well it is complicated. Lula indeed did deserve to go to jail, but news written by Glenn Greenwald, that is married to a politician with ties to Lula, gave fuel for the Lula appointed supreme court to free Lula (and a ton of other criminals alongside him... they kinda buthered the constitution and also created a serious security issue). That said, the news that Glenn Greenwald reported isn't a lie, Lava Jato did had issues, personally I don't think these issues should have resulted in Lula being freed, but the issues do exist.

I don't see anything wrong in characterizing Cardoso as "neoliberal," albeit of a "third-way" strand, like other politicians from the 1990s such as Tony Blair or Bill Clinton.

And about Lula & Haddad, well... I would say your characterization of them is as biased and wrong as you claim the author to be; it's equally ideologically charged, but in the opposite direction.

So the result is that you didn't really show anything wrong with the author, but simply expressed your ideological distaste with his leftism; while we, the readers of both the article and your comment, are left to choose based on nothing more than purely our own ideological inclinations.

The fact that you consider that the author's political opinions undermine the piece tells more about you than it tells about the article.

Further, how would you categorize Cardoso in the political spectrum? I mean, that is the one consensus about his administration, which encompassed privatization of state services, privatization of banks, outsourcing of workers and other state services, opening of the national market to foreign companies.

> I was in agreement with the general premise of the article but this wild claim written as a fact makes me question all the other claims that I lack the knowledge to challenge.

I think that's a good reaction, the "questioning" - now go verify them (the other claims) maybe? Also, maybe temper expectations, too -- I read a lot of stuff in which I find myself agreeing and disagreeing in various places, or seeing correct and incorrect things all at once. But I try to resist the instinct to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I don't mean to pile on but I see a lot of this sort of reaction to things these days and I'm curious about it.

> wild claim written as a fact

How should the author have written it instead? "I believe that Italian elites are desperate to remain part of the euro, and I also believe that the Euro subjects it to penury and destroys its future" ? In my mind that's not that different. It's an essay -- it's understood that the entire thing is a "claim", often a wild one.

Your quote doesn't seem to say anything such. It's the decision of the elites, not euro itself.

Also, I don't see how it's that far off the mark. Germany enjoys the benefits of strong exports, at the cost of the periphery. It's actually a pretty well known and often commented about fact.

Italy is one of the biggest losers from joining the euro system.

Honestly curious what part (not regional) of Germany should have directly benefitted in your opinion. I was too young at the time (just finishing school) but in the span of 1-2 years it seemed that all prices were adjusted back to the old value, but we had traded in our money at 2:1. The beers I bought in a pub were 4-5 DM and not soon after it was 3 EUR, that's definitely not due to inflation. The difference was basically so shockingly large that I actively wondered how this would work out in the next years.

You mentioned exports, so maybe "the economy as a whole" or everyone already having their company running. Also I've seen housing prices go sideways in the 00s, but not sure if that's completely unrelated.

Beside Germany, which other countries have massively benefitted from the Euro?

The Netherlands and some eastern ones.

Eastern European developing states.

>>"It is an absolutely false hyperbole to claim that the Euro is the cause of economic decline and the destruction of Italian future."

I think that, if that's your opinion, you don't understand the Euro very well.

The Euro is a monetary union without fiscal capacity. It's so bad designed that in order to survive it has to break its own rules every few years, but then we made like if that didn't happen and everything is OK.

Concerning the euro monetary union, I would recommend Michael Pettis on the issue:

- https://carnegieendowment.org/chinafinancialmarkets/58983

- (Paywall) https://www.ft.com/content/b79f5074-4069-3662-bfc8-64e101054...

For those who enjoyed the article, and are further interested in reading more about this central theme of frustrated economic/historical development specially as it took and takes place in Brazil, I recommend reading the late Professor Darcy Ribeiro.

In my view, largely influenced by Ribeiro, Brazil's elites are immensely selfish and petty, as well as always stuck in outdated economics and politics (e.g. rural elites have always been way too influential, ). The State is blatantly *negligent* and does not think about serving its people (e.g. let them build and live in favelas and leave them to their faith, build a new housing project but make it 20 miles from the beach and nevermind planning for transportation or education in the area).

There's definitely much that I love about Brazilian culture and the "general disposition" of my fellow nationals, but I agree that as a whole we have developed this sense of morbid ironic detachment from our social environment.

It is not just that.

For example if you read letters from Dom Pedro I to Dom Pedro II, and also see the opinions they had, both believed Brazillian economy was backwards and stupid, they believed strongly that it would be far more profitable, not just for the country, but even for the large landowners, if they agreed with the end of slavery, because it would create a consumer class (among other things).

I also saw similar issues regarding modernization of manufacturing, with the government wanting it but the elite resisting.

When the State finally ended slavery for good (after many attempts! For example one thing I was never taught in school, is that Brazil explicitly allowed England to sink Brazillian slaver ships way before slavery officially ended, as an attempt to end slavery while not antagonizing the elite), instead the elite kicked the government out and created its own.

Things basically remain this way, whenever the leadership is promising, the elite kick it out somehow.

The idea that land owning elites deposed the emperor because of emancipation is a mix of grade school historical simplification and monarchist propaganda, which is scarily pervasive on any google search about the period, given how small of a political movement it is.

> Brazil explicitly allowed England to sink Brazillian slaver ships

Killing all slaves in the ship?

Well, theoretically the threat of sinking the ship would make people not attempt at all, or surrender the slaves to England.

But I really doubt this theoretical approach always worked... probably trigger happy english captains existed.

"The important stuff—the really valuable ideas—were now protected by intellectual property rights"

There are several reasons why China/Japan/Korea had very little regard for international IP on its high growth years - Brazil should do the same. Being per capita poor means that majority cannot consume imported goods, sometimes those are important for further development like machines, methods and tools - for small and even medium size entrepreneurs.

In one picture: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/nov/29/sao-paulo-inj...

I don't think the image has to do with the term Brazilianization, it shows a brazilian problem sure, but the term is deeper than social inequalities, is more about not reaching a never ending promise of future

In a nutshell, the article argues about similarities between Brazil sociopolitical landscape and that of other western powers (mostly US and EU). The similarities, it argues, are that the capitalist system consists of growth based on exploiting peripheral groups to the benefit of the elites. The repercussions are indeed clear: erosion of employment (e.g. the tipping system in the US, air quote "contractors" barely making minimum wage, multiple jobs to make ends meet, etc), a growing sense of disconnect between the people and government as an entity to drive social improvements, the rise of corporate lobbying, etc. Even if specifics are different, it seems easy to agree with the premise that first world countries are headed to the same fate of "endless frustration" that characterizes Brazilian socioeconomics and politics.

I think it's telling that the author felt the need to reach for Brazil as an allegory to avoid the tired capitalism-vs-socialism bickering that plagues discussions about economic policy and social inequality. Nobody wants to hear that their own capitalist pursuit of success is fundamentally perched on exploitation. It's less awkward to point and shake heads at Brazil.

In a way, Brazil is a perfect poster child of the sociopolitical ailments of the world: its inadequacies serve quite appropriately as caricatures of the inadequacies of the western world, but its society is so alienated that people can't even be bothered to attempt to mount a patriotic defense of its ways.

Setting aside economics, James Madison developed an interesting categorization of systems of governance, based upon their method of obtaining civic energy, which seems rather timeless:

"Spirit of Governments"

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-14-02-020...

Only skimmed through it, but looks like a fairly typical specimen of the verborrhea produced by the Brazilian intelligentsia (who themselves usually come from the very elite that they claim to hate), except that this time it's written in English

Telltale shibboleths: neoliberal capitalism as the big villain (Brazil has one of the lowest trade/GDP ratios in the world, heck I wish neoliberalism was our biggest problem), an unhealthy obsession with "neoliberal" former president Fernando Henrique Cardoso (thanks to him for selling the "state-owned family jewels", growing up in the 90s we didn't have a phone line, only the rich could afford one from the the state-owned phone company), and "institutional coup in 2016" was the icing on the cake

I agree. This is the typical text that is used in Economics classes in Brazilian universities. 4 years of that I am very tired of this type of content. No attempt to explain why things came about the way authors think they did; too much reliance on the "agency of the elites" (how could they intentionally stop a country from developing? And why would they do that?). Also, I don't think Brazil is a special example at all. It has a GDP per capita very close to what would be predicted by its human capital. The interesting cases are Chile and Argentina (why one was so successful and the other so miserable in the last decades?).

Usually the narrative boils down to the elite (with help from the United States) conspiring to keep the country down. I've been hearing this drivel since elementary school, it's tiresome.

> Also, I don't think Brazil is a special example at all.

Yeah, like most Brazilians I used to think that Brazil was exceptional. The eye-opener was the book "The Elusive Quest for Growth", which describes efforts to bring many countries out of poverty. Most poor countries make similar mistakes, we're not an exception at all.

You don't think the USA has a strategic interest in keeping South america down, or at least easily controlled?

It may, at times and under certain circumstances. But for the most part, the notion that the U.S is what has kept much of latin america poor completely sidesteps completely valid blame against the region's many corrupt or awful leaders and their flunkies. It also sidesteps the bad voting decisions many populist-led voters have made for decades. Furthermore, it doesn't explain how a number of South American countries have indeed made enormous progress in social development over several decades.

Finally, you're talking about a vast region with hundreds of millions of people. If its own population and leaders want development, they'll find a way to get it, regardless of what any U.S agency or president wants without resorting to full blown military interventions across the board.

The idea that South America would be rich if only it weren't for the "Evil U.S." is a hard leftist myth that gets far too much credit at the expense of a much more complex and dynamic reality with many sources of not so popular blame.

> how could they intentionally stop a country from developing?

Isn't the petrobras scandal a good example of that? Or before that, the ridiculous culmination of the "steals but does" campaign by Maluf?

My understanding is that the IOF tax is in place precisely as an attempt from the government to keep tabs on the volume of siphoning of currency by politicians to Miami and tax havens elsewhere.

While I'm not particularly convinced of some of accusations thrown around by article, there's at least an attempt to analyze the situation, rather than the usual shrugging off the status quo.

Corruption by itself can't hold a country down, otherwise China would not present such enormous growth during last decades. Human capital is the underlying factor that contributes to corruption, slow economic growth, criminality, etc. I wish there was a straightforward way to improve that, but I am a bit cynical.

> Human capital is the underlying factor

Yeah, I think this is what the article was trying to get at, verbose and roundabout as it may have been. My main criticism would be against the idea that there is some consciously coordinated "elite" coming together to sabotage the country. Personally, I tend to think of it more as a tragedy of the commons, where multiple uncoordinated entities simultaneously arrive at the conclusion that exploitation of less privileged/leveraged/savvy entities is an acceptable way to achieve selfish/capitalist goals. One could definitely argue that the Brazilian culture of hustling certainly doesn't help there.

And even before diving into all those verbose signs, there was a clear indication of ignoring people advancements in all fronts of life at:

> the global story of the past forty years is one of retrogression

I was raised in Brazil during the eighties. That statement by the author has no connection to our country reality. You could argue on a few aspects that things are worse, but the general trend has been of improvement. And if the graphs about quality of life around the globe are correct, this seems to be a very widespread trend on many nations.

This “we’ve gotten worse all around” and “things have never been worse” stance is also typical of Brazilian shallow intellectual elite.

But is not, the term was coined by the German sociologist Ulrich Beck. The criticism is mostly directed for countries like the USA and UK, not Brazil by itself, the idea is that Brazil was always seen as a promise of becoming a "a land of the future", a promise that never came to be.

Edit, adding on it: The issues might become a recurring aspect on the future of other western countries. Brazil might be the first one to hit this though

> In political terms, Brazilianization means patrimonialism, clientelism, and corruption. Rather than see these as aberrations, we should understand them as the normal state of politics when widely shared economic progress is not available, and the socialist Left cannot act as a countervailing force. It was the industrial proletariat and socialist politics that kept liberalism honest, and prevented elites from instrumentalizing the state for their own interests.

It's a long article, but I think this quote summarizes it for people who want a TL;DR

Reply on news.ycombinator.com