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.
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.