The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

At Large

Brazil Stumbles

Don’t believe the hype. Socialism still doesn’t work in Latin America.

Former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s much-heralded plan to tie Brazil’s social welfare grants to government-subsidized credit was cited as pulling that country into more equitable economic management. Lula da Silva (2003-2010) became the darling of socialists in general and fellow unionists in particular not only in Brazil but throughout Latin America. His preferred successor and former chief of staff Dilma Rouseff inherited a highly-touted and apparently rocketing economy.

The current portrait of Brazil — as a successful model for all of Latin America’s underachieving economies — certainly factored into its selection to host the Olympics in 2016 (just two years after it will host soccer’s World Cup in 2014). The winner of the Olympic site competition traditionally enjoys new economic impetus, and in Brazil this is supposed to be the icing on Lula’s legacy.

But maybe that legacy is already a little inflated.

Perhaps most important to the planned socialist future of Brazil is the reconstruction of the massive and densely populated favela (slums). These decrepit neighborhoods harbor the vast number of Brazil’s poorest urban citizens and the self-multiplying criminal activity that so dominates Rio de Janeiro and other cities. The government proudly has cited the substantial improvement in living conditions in the sprawling favela.  Unfortunately, the oft-mentioned but rarely-audited crime statistics do not inspire confidence.

Corruption remains a drag on the national economy and shows no sign of diminishing. One journalist characterized the various versions of Brazilian corruption as “the lubricant that makes the donkey cart roll.” (Apparently this has a more impressive connotation in Portuguese.) In any case the meaning is the same: whether one is speaking of major contracts or simple everyday commerce, the various ramifications of bribery are part of Brazil’s traditional system. Lula and his followers never changed that.

There is no question that prosperity has boomed since Lula’s “new economy” achieved what some have characterized as “an Asian-like pace.” So how was it all possible? Naturally the Left has credited the progress to sound socialist planning and development. Actually the planning had far less to do with any success that occurred during Lula’s time in office than it did with the extraordinary rise in commodity prices.

Communist China early on became Lula’s new best friend as Beijing began buying every raw material and agricultural product Brazil had to offer, even while the prices soared. As a partial result the Brazilian real increased in value about 46% in two and a half years as the national economy grew at a phenomenal 7.5% up to last January 2011.

Unfortunately for now-President Rousseff, the program of “Lulismo” hasn’t served her and Brazil that well. The current account deficit of 2.3% of GDP that Brazil had run in the first half of this year has been made up by foreign investors seeking to cash in on the country’s perceived growth. The problem is that the deficit keeps widening as Brazil continues to pay for its material appetites. The consensus among analysts is that Brazil needs to press forward with its own investment in order to build its infrastructure and improve productivity. It isn’t happening, however, at an adequate and influential rate.

Foreign investment in the Brazilian stock market has fallen off 70% in the first half of 2011. It’s true that the previous year had abnormal growth, but this current drop is very serious. Credit growth has slowed and inflation has increased. Meanwhile, the inclination of strong governmental involvement in private enterprise in various sectors has further dampened foreign investment interest. Inflation has forced benchmark interest rates to 12.5% and rising.

Over-ambitious development has been the stimulus to inflation. Finished-product imports from such trading partners as China have outstripped any balance in exports. Brazil doesn’t even have adequate fertilizer production, and that kind of thing hurts its agricultural exports. But the biggest shortfall has been in the field of petroleum production from its Obama-lauded deep well off-shore drilling. Far more outside investment is necessary to profitably exploit these considerable oil reserves. And here is where Lula’s famous tight government oversight and control (read: socialist management) comes into negative play.

It may seem a bit unfair to rain on Brazil’s parade, but just as Lula’s personality drove the success of his presidency, that same flamboyance obscured the reality of his country’s shortfalls. By focusing on easily accessible credit for low-income and no-income households, there has been a burgeoning of the availability of all manner of consumer-oriented products. Government-backed credit facilities encouraged buying that in turn manifested the illusion of general well-being. Ultimately, even though the economy gave the appearance of blossoming, it was not because of real structural changes but rather speculative investment based on a perception of broad economic gains. Without the confluence of a historic rise in commodity prices and massive orders for raw materials by China, Lulismo had no real base.

Inevitably inflation has pricked the credit bubble, forcing a tightening of monetary policy and thus restricting access to the past’s extravagantly affordable lending rates. The consumers, especially the least advantaged, have lost their ability to keep up their newly found ability to buy. An environment of substantial interest rate rises is now too burdensome to sustain the high level of investment necessary to keep Brazil’s economic pot boiling. Things may turn around again come Olympic time, but it certainly won’t be because of Lulismo or any other game of political mirrors.

The illusion of Lulismo may still exist across Latin America, but not in the more financially hard-nosed environment of European and Asian financial capitals. Caution is the word when it comes to Brazil — in spite of the charm and fashionable socialist objectives of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and his political heiress, Dilma Rousseff.

About the Author

George H. Wittman writes a weekly column on international affairs for The American Spectator online. He was the founding chairman of the National Institute for Public Policy.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (14) |

Pecos Pete| 8.8.11 @ 6:59AM

Socialism always fails; thus, Brazil will fall.

nister| 8.8.11 @ 8:51AM

Hope you're wrong; the US is socialist. It's only capitalist on the masthead.

Alan Brooks| 8.8.11 @ 10:35AM

Rightist socialism didn't work with the Bush dynasty either. Nor, one might add, with John McCain just three years ago.
Back to the drawing board.

Holy Shiite| 8.8.11 @ 8:37PM

Holy Shiite---you have absolutely nothing to add to any debate. Ever. I have read your uber-boring replies for a while.

*Yawn*.

Conservatives bad.
Liberals good. And yes, you will claim (again) to be some above the fray pseudo blah, blah, blah. You are Dave Matthews from times past.

Fetch a paper or something. Chase a car. Take a shiite.

I know you think you are doing us a favor by being here. How about being "over there"? (read: go away)

Alan Brooks| 8.9.11 @ 1:54AM

I am not paid to contribute, only post what my controllers tell me to. Beside I can't recall ever having an original thought.

Kilgore Trout| 8.9.11 @ 11:45PM

Nor can WE ALL!

POST American| 8.8.11 @ 7:38AM

London USURY bankster created 'So--shall--ALL
ism' though still touted, as a Disinfo and DIS-traction OP---- really is beside the point.

More telling by far is what the IMF and the boys
have done to places like Argentina --once one of
the richest, most bustling and prosperous nations
on earth.

"As rich as an Argentine----"

That's what they used to say.

Take a good look now. A good long look.

And as, right now, that 1.5 quadrilion in FAKE USURER derivatives debt remains unmentioned ---TAKE HEED AMERICA.

----------------------TAKE HEED------------------------

Audace| 8.8.11 @ 11:50AM

Can one say that Brasil only looks good because Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Venezuela look so bad?

I think so.

Clinton Lovell| 8.8.11 @ 12:59PM

Oh no. Don't tell me that yet ANOTHER socialist is being made to suffer the lesson that government spending can't create prosperity.

shipley130| 8.8.11 @ 3:05PM

Everytime socialism rears it's ugly head, it eventually ends in total failure. A country simply cannot prosper when the useless and unproductive are getting a free paycheck.

POST American| 8.8.11 @ 10:58PM

---PUT ASIDE 'SO--shall-ALL---ism'----

Keep your eyes on the manner, affects, aims
and hellbound nature of GOD mocking
---USURY.

It makes all the difference-------------------------

Jack in Wi.| 8.9.11 @ 1:52AM

I was in Rio a few months ago. They have oil rigs drilllling right off Coppa Cobana beach. We have huge oil and gas reserves, as well as the world's largest coal reserves. This economy would boom if we developed our own energy.

mattikallio | 8.22.11 @ 6:34PM

A country simply cannot prosper when the useless and unproductive are getting a free paycheck.

watertree| 8.28.11 @ 11:13AM

Compared to the economies of the US and Europe, Brazil looks damn good. A reduction of 4% in public debt in July, a great fiscal position with only 39% net debt to GDP and rapidly decreasing and Forex swelling to over $350 billion.

I'm amazed at comparing the American and Brazilian middle classes, while the former has a much greater income and standards of living, Americans' net worth is pathetic (around $100k for typical middle class household). Wouldn't be surprised it were higher for Brazilians as they tend to own their houses outright.

More Articles by George H. Wittman

More Articles From At Large

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/08/08/brazil-stumbles

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin | 6.17.13

The Biggest Fool of All

Doug Bandow | 6.17.13

Can Liturgical Music Be Saved?

Patrick O'Hannigan | 6.17.13

Revenge of the Fruitcakes

Peter Hitchens | 6.17.13

Obama's Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield | 6.18.13

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut | 6.18.13

The Mole in Don Draper

James Bowman | 6.17.13

ADVERTISEMENT