Sorry God, Sanity Won

[TheEconomist]

I don't even have to know economics to know Brazil's going to bust. Like India, Brazil is more open than China, so all of the problems that should be obvious in China but aren't because of its government, is plain to see in Brazil and India.

Maybe I'll elaborate more in the economics thread when I feel like it. But, like I just said, unlike China, Brazil's graph speaks for itself and shows that "Brazilians getting less and less poor because of Marxism" is nothing but an illusion that every generation of Brazilians fall for.

Damnit, wasting too much time on useless talk. Money to be made! Back later.

[Gradius]

That's why the title says "Lord of Economics".

*bowdown

[Visions of Khas]

So how's China doin', TE?

[TheEconomist]

Lots of unicorns and rainbows.

[sandwich_bird]

So how's China doin', TE?

Some of that I guess.

[TheEconomist]

That's so 2008. There's been four years of standard construction and another 158 billion USD stimulus since then. It was 64 million vacant homes, probably 100 million now.

Oh well, as long as it makes GDP who cares. </sarcasm>

[TargetBlue]

Except under Obama you don't acctually lose anything.

Lawl at that notion.

[TheEconomist]

Oh wow, looks like someone was in a rush to agree with the 'Lord of Economics'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/g...ong-slump.html

The US Conference Board has now hastily come to be in agreement with the 'Lord of Economics'. %100 fake arroogance, relax guys.

I love saying the 'Lord of Economics'.

[TcheQuevara]

I know a little Brazilian history and politics, but I know the shit out of its economics. In fact, China and Brazil are the countries I know the most about outside of EU/US. Go ahead. Quiz me.

I'll belive you because 1) you say you actually invested here and 2) yes, a lot of people here are expecting our "bubble" to colapse.

What made me mad was your "that's why Brazilians are poor" thing.

If you knew only a little of our "economic miracle" os the 70's, you'd know it's was the period whe inequality had grown the most, creating a shitty social crisis we aren't cured of to this day.

GDP growth is worthless if its results aren't distributed. That's why Brazilians are poor: because we own nothing, we have shitty salaries, food and healthcare are expensive, we live in shitty places, the public education sucks, private education is unaffordable.

All are "socialist" measures that may be a little harmful for the economy but you have no idea of how inneficient economical growth is in Brazil if we're talking about bringing civilization and human dignity to my country.

You probably have invested or studied investing in our agro industry. Little you know the agrobusinessmen are the ones who are destroying the precious rainforest Americans are so sensible about. They're the ones who have been shooting, literally shooting peasants and indians out of their lands for decades. They still do this in the very 21th century.

So don't come and tell me why my country is poor. Your country spends MUCH more money with welfare than mine. Good thing for you, btw.

We're taught geography. It's just not most of the rest of world is such a non-issue we forget where the fuck you all are at.

I don't blame you for that. I blame you for trying to be a smart ass about subjects you know nothing about.

Besides, it doesn't matter how the rest of my country is. My knowledge of the geopolitics and economics is unquestionable.

Bwhahha, no it isn't. It sucks, Tychus. Memorizing names of countries? It is both useless and the least one would expect of anyone in high school. You don't even know how those countries or regions' politics work.

Marxism NEVER makes people less poor, only makes them FEEL less poor.

Wtf is this supposed to mean? How do people "only feel" less poor if they have more to eat, more accessible education, more conditions to start small businesses? If this isn't being less poor, what the hell does "less poor" means? Giving more profit to American investors?

BTW: 'Marxism' was couped in the 60's by the military because president João Goulart wanted to promote a land reform. Much of things that are symbolical of Brazilian poverty wouldn't exist today if he had succeded. Jango may had ruined the economy? Maybe, but countries need structural reforms. Specially third world countries. Those reforms are sometimes made at the cost of the economy. Oh Tychus, Tychus.

[TheEconomist]

You don't even know how those countries or regions' politics work.

*sigh*

http://sclegacy.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14146

Yes, I do. To say the least. I've read more geopolitics books than any sane person should.

If you knew only a little of our "economic miracle" os the 70's, you'd know it's was the period whe inequality had grown the most, creating a shitty social crisis we aren't cured of to this day.

You aren't hearing me. I said your "economic miracle" was during the 50s/60s and then the 80s. Your country went back on its reform in the 70s, chosing a more socialist Soviet model and you got the problems you're talking about now. So, in a way, you just agreed with me. During the 70s, it was generally accepted that the Soviet Union would overtake America so a lot of country sought to follow its model. Including Brazil, to an extent although I wouldn't call Brazil straight up Communism. Now, the generally accepted belief is that China will overtake the West (ignoring the easy to see fact that its fundamentals are the same as Japan's and literally CANNOT POSSIBLY overtake US/EU for numerous reasons) now you're going back on your reforms (much like China) and you are once against entering a bust phase. Which will lead to something similiar to he 70s, I would say, in terms of economics. I wouldn't push this though since I don't contemplate Brazil as much as other countries.

That's why Brazilians are poor: because we own nothing, we have shitty salaries, food and healthcare are expensive, we live in shitty places, the public education sucks, private education is unaffordable.

Correct. I was oversimplifying the problem in a satirical fashion to make a point. But, the undeniable fact is that country's that chose Socialism perform worse. Korea and Japan had these same problems in the 50s. They stuck with capitalism, ignored socialism/communism (read: killed all communists and various forms) and then became some of the most prosperous countries in the world. Look at North Korea vs South Korea. Taiwan vs China/Thailand/Vietnam/etc.. Western Europe vs Eastern Europe, hell even just East Germany vs West Germany. South Africa vs surrounding African countries. Mexico vs other central american countries. Brazil vs the rest of South America. Fuck, even America vs Europe, which despire ruling the world for 500 years struggles to have HALF THE LIVING STANDARD of evil, corrupt America.

You probably have invested or studied investing in our agro industry.

Actually, I shorted (anti-invested, bet against) your hard commodities business. There's very little reason for anyone to invest in Brazil because its stacked heavily in the country's favor, at least through the stock market.

No where near as bad China.

Your country spends MUCH more money with welfare than mine.

I didn't say welfare was why your country is poor. In fact, in the other thread, I was pro-certain forms of welfare/socialism.

All are "socialist" measures that may be a little harmful for the economy but you have no idea of how inneficient economical growth is in Brazil if we're talking about bringing civilization and human dignity to my country.

You misunderstand my point. What I was saying was that your country takes three steps forward and then two steps back in easily predicted cycles of about a decade. Your country moves forward when it embraces free markets. I'm not just talking about GDP either. Then, for whatever reason, your country revokes reform and then busts, i.e. two steps back. Your 70s example confirms this.

I blame you for trying to be a smart ass about subjects you know nothing about.

... except I do know about it. At least from the economics perspective. What goes on in your country politically I have no little interest in unless it effects the economics. I only really care about geopolitics as it effects the West (i.e. the Middle East, powder keg in Asia, etc.)

How do people "only feel" less poor if they have more to eat, more accessible education, more conditions to start small businesses?

Marxism didn't do this. The reforms forced on your country in order to join America's World Trade Organisation is what led to these things, i.e. more capitalism. At least that's what it appears from the outside since growth strongly cooresponds to reforms demanded by America/Europe. In fact, you can also trace your booms and busts to how your country's relations are with America's markets. This time, you chose to hitch yourself to China, and it's going to drag your country down the rabbit hole.