Jair Bolsonaro

2»

Comments

  • Pretty much everyone suffered the worst recession since the early 80's in 2008. I wouldn't put too much store in that.
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Pretty much everyone suffered the worst recession since the early 80's in 2008. I wouldn't put too much store in that.
    Yes, absolutely. What's interesting to me is that in Brazil it came two years later. Brazil was fine in 2008, much better than a lot of other countries. That was surprising at the time.
  • Less exposure to the loans market directly, and suffering economically only when international trade and investment slowed down?
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Less exposure to the loans market directly, and suffering economically only when international trade and investment slowed down?
    I can't tell for sure, I'm not a macro-economist. The Brazilian government has lots of debt of course, but this sharply shifted from external to internal debt since 2000. Maybe that helps explain it, but again I'm no expert.

    Another thing I mentioned before is that around 2006, Brazil started a heavily Keynesian programme of government investment in infrastructure. I can see this close to where I live: a big new viaduct, a road, all from that time. I don't know if that helped.

    One plausible narrative from my point of view is: the 2008 crisis was mostly caused by right-wing policies: relaxing the regulations of big US banks etc. And then a centre-left party in Brazil had to be punished for it :rolleyes:
  • LeRoc wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Pretty much everyone suffered the worst recession since the early 80's in 2008. I wouldn't put too much store in that.
    Yes, absolutely. What's interesting to me is that in Brazil it came two years later. Brazil was fine in 2008, much better than a lot of other countries. That was surprising at the time.
    That's not what I'm talking about, nor what voters are likely reacting to. Brazil weathered the GFC pretty well, with GDP growth about flat for the 2009.

    The worst recession in Brazil since the 80's was far more recent and severe, in 2015-2016.
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    I'm not denying that the economy played a roll in the elections. I already referred to that two or three times on this thread. What I'm thinking about is that there is something inherently wrong and dangerous when in a volatile economic system the automatism becomes: "the economy does bad for a while → let's vote for the fascist."
  • I suspect it's more "the economy does very bad for a while, plus crime and corruption - let's vote for someone else." Had the conservatives been in power under the same circumstances, voters might have been happy to protest by voting for a socialist.
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    Dave W wrote: »
    Had the conservatives been in power under the same circumstances, voters might have been happy to protest by voting for a socialist.
    So what? I'm sure you don't agree with Obrador. There are a lot of politicians I don't agree with.

    But somehow, the bottom line should be: don't vote for a fascist.
  • LeRoc wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    Had the conservatives been in power under the same circumstances, voters might have been happy to protest by voting for a socialist.
    So what?
    So I'm suggesting they didn't (all) vote for Bolsonaro because he's a fascist, but because he's something other than what they had before, which was apparently not working out well for them. The automatism, if such there is, isn't "things are bad, so vote fascist"; it's "things are bad, so vote not(whatever we've been having)." For better or worse, your preferred party certainly wasn't "not(whatever we've been having)"; long-time incumbents always acquire damage.
    But somehow, the bottom line should be: don't vote for a fascist.
    I agree that it would be nice if everyone shared that taboo, but you have to deal with the voters you have, not the ones you wish you had.

    I'm reasonably confident there's a sizable fraction of people in the US who would vote for a fascist if they had a chance - a real one, I mean, not just the clown we have now. I think one key barrier to that has been the exercise of power by party gatekeepers, at least until recently - I don't think it's all been down to the fundamental good nature and sense of the people acting through the miracle of democracy.
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    Dave W wrote: »
    it's "things are bad, so vote not(whatever we've been having)."
    That is something fascists can take advantage of.

    Dave W wrote: »
    long-time incumbents always acquire damage.
    Of course, and it's a bit surprising that the PT held on for as long as they did. I can even understand that the criticism on the incumbent party will be a bit exaggerated in these cases. What's new is this new kind of demonisation of a party that's completely out of proportion. That's dangerous.
  • LeRoc wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    it's "things are bad, so vote not(whatever we've been having)."
    That is something fascists can take advantage of.
    Well, it's something any opposition can take advantage of. I'd be surprised to hear the PT didn't get a lot of mileage out of it in their campaign in 2002. It's a natural human reaction.
    Dave W wrote: »
    long-time incumbents always acquire damage.
    Of course, and it's a bit surprising that the PT held on for as long as they did. I can even understand that the criticism on the incumbent party will be a bit exaggerated in these cases. What's new is this new kind of demonisation of a party that's completely out of proportion. That's dangerous.
    I think inter-party attacks can be limited by the recognition of common norms and expectations by politicians committed to the institutions they came up in, a recognition that outsider candidates may not share. Sounds like maybe Brazil's political gatekeepers have been losing their grip, too.
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    Dave W wrote: »
    I'd be surprised to hear the PT didn't get a lot of mileage out of it in their campaign in 2002.
    What happened in 2016 is something else than a "normal" loss of an incumbent party to me. Those happen all the time: a party is in power, things go bad economically, people choose another party who they think has better economic plans. This system has some disadvantages, but it's what we have,and to a degree I can accept that.

    The difference here is:
    1. The winning candidate didn't have an economic policy at all.
    2. The degree of demonisation of the incumbent party was out of proportion.
    3. The winning candidate's despise of minorities was definitely a factor in his victory.

    These factors weren't present in PT's victory in 2002, or with Obrador's. But they were there in Trump's electoral win, and Brazil is continuing this trend.


    Dave W wrote: »
    Sounds like maybe Brazil's political gatekeepers have been losing their grip, too.
    I'm not sure the country ever had them.

  • LeRoc wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Less exposure to the loans market directly, and suffering economically only when international trade and investment slowed down?
    I can't tell for sure, I'm not a macro-economist. The Brazilian government has lots of debt of course, but this sharply shifted from external to internal debt since 2000. Maybe that helps explain it, but again I'm no expert.

    Another thing I mentioned before is that around 2006, Brazil started a heavily Keynesian programme of government investment in infrastructure. I can see this close to where I live: a big new viaduct, a road, all from that time. I don't know if that helped.

    One plausible narrative from my point of view is: the 2008 crisis was mostly caused by right-wing policies: relaxing the regulations of big US banks etc. And then a centre-left party in Brazil had to be punished for it :rolleyes:

    I'm no macroeconomist either, but I've read that Brazil's economic crash had a lot to do with a decline in commodity prices and an economic slowdown in China, which was a major market for Brazilian exports. The corruption scandals also affected investor confidence.
This discussion has been closed.