Election day in Brazil

[StewartP]

An article in today's Charent Libre (local french paper) says that he personally has been tainted by his govt's scandals.

There has certainly been a good track record as far as inflation goes, (8.4% in 2002 down to 4.5% now) but I realise that it is probable that economic sucess/failure is independant of political policy.

It is an immense country - population 187 million with a vast spread between rich and poor, mega-cities and jungle.

There are also 150 homicides per day. 55000 commited in 2005, which makes it a bloodier country than Iraq

 

[Luciana]

... and I agree.
Brazil is fantastic, but is has been corrupt since Ed knows when and is no more so now than earlier. Do you think it will improve if Lula is not reelected?

I believe corruption is greater now under Lula's government, however, I also believe that the perception of corruption is greater because more and more segments of society are now willing to put up with that.

Regarding corruption under Fernando Henrique... well, at the very least they were ashamed of it. Lula wants us to believe that's the way it is, and that's the only way to govern a country.

Now you ask, how does he get so many votes? Because he's distributing money to 11 million impoverished families so that they keep their kids at school or if they prove they have absolutely no income. It looks like it's a horrible concept, but it's been effective in diminishing abject poverty and it's putting in the consumer market people who otherwise lived in subsistance levels. Also, malnutrition and child labor have been diminishing lately. So as much as I hate this kind of policy from a government, I have to concede that it is, at the very least, humane. And no country benefits from having a malnourished or uneducated population. It is very hard to criticize someone for voting on him if now this person has two meals a day instead of two.

I did not vote for him because I believe that anyone who follows him will have to stick to these projects - only implementing it much better.

 

[Luciana]

There are also 150 homicides per day. 55000 commited in 2005, which makes it a bloodier country than Iraq

Most of it related to drug trafficking, as Brazil imports drugs from Colombia and exports it to the USA and Europe. Not much stays here, because most can't afford those drugs.

Homicide rates in Brazil quadrupled after the 1980s, coinciding with the increase of drug plantations in Colombia.

I wish people would have this in mind before consuming illegal drugs.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I believe corruption is greater now under Lula's government, however, I also believe that the perception of corruption is greater because more and more segments of society are now willing to put up with that.

If more people are willing to put up with it, why is the perception of corruption greater? I would have thought it would be smaller as those on the take would be less willing to talk about it.

Regarding corruption under Fernando Henrique... well, at the very least they were ashamed of it. Lula wants us to believe that's the way it is, and that's the only way to govern a country.

Now you ask, how does he get so many votes? Because he's distributing money to 11 million impoverished families so that they keep their kids at school or if they prove they have absolutely no income. It looks like it's a horrible concept, but it's been effective in diminishing abject poverty and it's putting in the consumer market people who otherwise lived in subsistance levels. Also, malnutrition and child labor have been diminishing lately. So as much as I hate this kind of policy from a government, I have to concede that it is, at the very least, humane. And no country benefits from having a malnourished or uneducated population. It is very hard to criticize someone for voting on him if now this person has two meals a day instead of two.

I have to admit I don't understand this at all. What you are describing is simple bribing. "I'm in power and can distribute the tax money as I see fit and I will do so to buy people's votes directly".

I did not vote for him because I believe that anyone who follows him will have to stick to these projects - only implementing it much better.

You didn't vote for him because some new president will also have the same policies? Explain please.

 

[Elio]

Luciana,

... he's distributing money to 11 million impoverished families so that they keep their kids at school or if they prove they have absolutely no income. It looks like it's a horrible concept, but ...

It doesn't look like a horrible concept to me...

Elio.

 

[Correa Neto]

It's assistencialism. It's OK for an emergency policy or measure. But there are two problems:
- In Brazil (actually the whole Latin America) its part of populist policies, regrdless of being right- or left-handed. Generally walks hands to hands with authoritarian governments.
- Its useless in the long run, since it will not solve the problem. The problem can only be solved by the creation of jobs, improving education, etc.

This put, I must say that in the last elections I voted for Lula. And later I became deeply disappointed with the association with corruption schemes. It was heart-breaking to see a party for wich I had great expectations due to its ideology become just like the others. His party made alliances with some of the very same people related to previous problems. Also, I think his government should -and could- have made much more. I would cite transport infrastructure, power generation and tax policy as key areas that should have been better dealt with.

One extra point.
I think the comparsion between Iraq with Brazil was, as it was made, a bit skewed. Iraq has roughly 26 million people, while Brazil has 180 million people.

ETA: This Sunday I could not vote, since I am not at Rio. This time, it's not my fault!

 

[Luciana]

Luciana,
It doesn't look like a horrible concept to me...
Elio.

Well, you might understand that it looks horrible because as, Correa Neto put it, distribution of money turns people dependent upon the government, and they will not have the incentive to fight on their own. Moreover, the "pluses" of the project, like keeping kids at school, is not being implemented corrected due to poor auditing.

More than that, this policy relies on increasing the tax burden on the middle-class, that is already too heavy. And at this point we at the middle-class are tired of paying the bill for a number of failed projects, especially one so geared to reelect Lula. Some believe that more specific projects on health (to diminish infant mortality, for example) and education (better pay for teacher, better infrastructure, technology, etc.) could have more positive effects. Furthermore, a business environment welcoming to foreign investments would create jobs and make this distribution of money unnecessary.

In short, it's a lot like DD said - bribing. To those people, Lula himself is God. And he should be, because 2 meals versus one a day is a major improvement in someone's life. But as long as they remain uneducated and naive politically, they won't be able to demand policies that could truly change their lives and lift them off poverty.

On a personal and selfish level , I'm almost glad there will be a runoff for presidency and in the state of Rio. That's because I ghostwrite stuff for politicians, and it means I'll have a busy month both working and earning money to take to TAM.

 

[Luciana]

If more people are willing to put up with it, why is the perception of corruption greater? I would have thought it would be smaller as those on the take would be less willing to talk about it.

Oops, I should have said "NOT willing to put up with that", otherwise what I said would be a serious contradiction.

I have to admit I don't understand this at all. What you are describing is simple bribing. "I'm in power and can distribute the tax money as I see fit and I will do so to buy people's votes directly".

That's how many people are interpreting it.

But giving people the chance to have meals or making minor improvements in their home is not bad. You must have in mind that this is geared towards people who live on less than 2 dollars a day. In some cases, that means no electricity, no bathroom or 5 children sharing a mattress.

International organisms went from skepticism to a positive evaluation of this project I described - Bolsa Família - because as far as misery is concerned, any investment is bound to improve a number of statistics.

For example, domestic violence has diminished and divorce rates have shown a slight increase. Why? Because the government gives the money to the women, who are more likely to spend it on their children than men. Therefore, with this new empowerment, women do not accept being beaten up! That was shown to be true in those Ed forsaken places in the Middle of Nowhere, Amazon.

You didn't vote for him because some new president will also have the same policies? Explain please.

No president, at this point, would eliminate Bolsa Familia. I believe just about all candidates could improve it in a way Lula never could, because his assistants are corrupt and incompetent to the core. As I said, it's working as a concept, but implementation is still weak. I could almost say it's working despite him. And, after all, the concept started with Fernando Henrique, so he can't even claim to have had the idea. Lula simply expanded it.

 

[Elio]

Correa Neto,

It's assistencialism. (...)

Yes. When people are not able to live on their own, you should help them out. Well... I think you should.

(...) It's OK for an emergency policy or measure (...)

Ok. This is an emergency.

But there are two problems:
- In Brazil (actually the whole Latin America) its part of populist policies, regrdless of being right- or left-handed. Generally walks hands to hands with authoritarian governments.(...)

Ok. So this is a specific problem.

- Its useless in the long run, since it will not solve the problem. The problem can only be solved by the creation of jobs, improving education, etc.

It's already very useful in the sense that it solves these people's problem. It is , of course , not incompatible with a policy of creation of jobs, etc...

ETA: This Sunday I could not vote, since I am not at Rio. This time, it's not my fault!

So what ! we are lucky to live in a country where we have the right to vote, so you must vote !

Luciana,

Well, you might understand that it looks horrible because as, Correa Neto put it, distribution of money turns people dependent upon the government, and they will not have the incentive to fight on their own. (..)

Indeed. Not having enough money to eat is certainly incentive enough to make you fight on your own. Some people - and I'm not talking about you - even think it's fun to watch...

Moreover, the "pluses" of the project, like keeping kids at school, is not being implemented corrected due to poor auditing.

Ok. That's another problem.

More than that, this policy relies on increasing the tax burden on the middle-class, that is already too heavy. And at this point we at the middle-class are tired of paying the bill for a number of failed projects, especially one so geared to reelect Lula.

If these are failed projects, I understand.

In short, it's a lot like DD said - bribing. To those people, Lula himself is God. And he should be, because 2 meals versus one a day is a major improvement in someone's life. But as long as they remain uneducated and naive politically, they won't be able to demand policies that could truly change their lives and lift them off poverty.

Thats' another problem again. At least they have three meals instead of two !

IOn a personal and selfish level , I'm almost glad there will be a runoff for presidency and in the state of Rio. That's because I ghostwrite stuff for politicians, and it means I'll have a busy month both working and earning money to take to TAM.

Ok ! Keep up the good work and have a nice trip to TAM !

Elio.

 

[Correa Neto]

Correa Neto,
Yes. When people are not able to live on their own, you should help them out. Well... I think you should.

The state should help them to live on their own by providing the means. Not by giving them money, but by giving them what's needed to do so: jobs, education, healthcare, etc.

Ok. This is an emergency.

An emergency that is lasting for ages. Populistic programs come and go, and the problem remains the same.

It's already very useful in the sense that it solves these people's problem. It is , of course , not incompatible with a policy of creation of jobs, etc...

Ah, but where is this policy?
*looks around, sees little or no investiments in roads, railways, energy generation and distribution, crumbling educational system, a terrible tax system*

The way its being made, it's just like using analgesics to cure some health problem that causes pain. The analgesic will just "turn off" or decrease the pain. It is not effective against the cause, the disease itself.

So what ! we are lucky to live in a country where we have the right to vote, so you must vote !

I am working 1400 km away from my voting section on a straight line (OK, curved, since the Earth is not flat). Here in Brazil one can not vote in transit.

 

[Luciana]

Now for bragging.

We had the results of the elections, nationwide - President, Senator, Governor, Federal and State Deputy - in exactly 5 hours. Brazil has a fully electronic electoral system considered the best in the world.

The state of Rio counted all votes in less than 4 hours. São Paulo, with 28 million voters, took 5 hours.

I followed the results in my computer, in 5% increments, getting data as fast as news agencies, through a 1Mb program I installed.

Now if only we had electronic politicians also.

 

[Bjorn]

Now for bragging.

We had the results of the elections, nationwide - President, Senator, Governor, Federal and State Deputy - in exactly 5 hours.

And how did Lula do?

 

[Luciana]

Up until two weeks ago it was expected Lula would have more than 50% of valid votes.

Then yet another scandal broke up, and now there will be a run-off against Alckmin, a center-right candidate. I'll vote for Alckmin with a pang in the heart, but I think he's the lesser of two evils.

But it was a very tight difference, it was not known for certain there would be a run-off until 95% of votes were counted.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Oops, I should have said "NOT willing to put up with that", otherwise what I said would be a serious contradiction.

No problem. One point cleared up.

That's how many people are interpreting it.

Is there any other way of interpreting it?

But giving people the chance to have meals or making minor improvements in their home is not bad. You must have in mind that this is geared towards people who live on less than 2 dollars a day. In some cases, that means no electricity, no bathroom or 5 children sharing a mattress.

No, giving people the oppertunity to make a good life is generally not wrong. Unfortunately, that isn't what Lula has done. He has given certain poor people a fish, and made a large brouhahah about it. He has not tought them to fish.

International organisms went from skepticism to a positive evaluation of this project I described - Bolsa Família - because as far as misery is concerned, any investment is bound to improve a number of statistics.

Just like a lot of foreign aid. It helps the very needy for a short while, but has no lasting affect.

For example, domestic violence has diminished and divorce rates have shown a slight increase. Why? Because the government gives the money to the women, who are more likely to spend it on their children than men. Therefore, with this new empowerment, women do not accept being beaten up! That was shown to be true in those Ed forsaken places in the Middle of Nowhere, Amazon.

Lu, the government should not be in the business of granting one-time moneypiles to any particular person or family. They should be in the business of creating jobs and viable business oppertunities for people in general. Only if a country has most of its able-bodied populace engaged in producing saleable products, will the vast majority of the population gain an increase in their income and lifestyle.

No president, at this point, would eliminate Bolsa Familia. I believe just about all candidates could improve it in a way Lula never could, because his assistants are corrupt and incompetent to the core. As I said, it's working as a concept, but implementation is still weak. I could almost say it's working despite him. And, after all, the concept started with Fernando Henrique, so he can't even claim to have had the idea. Lula simply expanded it.

So you still think that Lula himself is clean?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Now if only we had electronic politicians also.

President HAL? Not a good plan.

DR

 

[Unnamed]

Lula won the second round, with 61% of the votes (58 million).

 

[Rob Lister]

I miss that beach.

 

[CFLarsen]

Lu, the government should not be in the business of granting one-time moneypiles to any particular person or family. They should be in the business of creating jobs and viable business oppertunities for people in general.

And they should do this by...tax breaks, perhaps even subsidies, for companies?