MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, October 23rd 2018 - 11:59 UTC

Temer names trusted official a Mines and Energy minister, ahead of decisive privatizations

Tuesday, April 10th 2018 - 08:55 UTC
Full article 12 comments

Brazil’s President Michel Temer named Wellington Moreira Franco to take over the Mines and Energy Ministry, a key portfolio that includes overseeing the proposed privatization of Centrais Eletricas Brasileiras SA (Eletrobras). Read full article

Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • DemonTree

    Naturally he picks one of the ministers named in the Lava Jato to oversee the privatisation. I'm totally confident he'll sell it the highest bidder and not the highest briber.

    Apr 10th, 2018 - 02:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Enrique Massot

    We know where privatization of public services leads and who benefits from it. It will be anyone but the public.

    Apr 10th, 2018 - 08:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • :o))

    “SOMEBODY” Is getting Ready, is Able AND is Willing to receive the “Donations, Gifts, Commissions, etc”]! REF:
    http://midia.gruposinos.com.br/_midias/jpg/2015/03/20/tacho_nh_2103-657808.jpg

    Apr 11th, 2018 - 03:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    @DT
    Reekie's unfortunate comment , “We know where privatization of public services leads and who benefits from it. It will be anyone but the public” is at least strange, coming from someone living in a country where private enterprise is what makes the economy run well.

    But let's see what happened to Petrobras, after it was “privatized” in 2001, and after it was“nationalized” by Lula, in 2007/8.
    In 2001, FHC decided to privatize the company, by capitalizing it to the extent that the government would remain with only 49% of the voting shares ; still the largest single shareholder, but no longer running it. The funds came from Brazilian workers, who were permitted to invest up to 50% of the balance in their retirement funds (FGTS), to buy shares.
    So in 2001, 320,000 workers funneled about US$ 1,5 billion into PB…the rest came from private investors (Brzln & int’l). The PT, as usual opposed such a plan, alleging it was tantamount to robbing the Brazilian people, so I ask, 1) how did the fact that 100% belonging to the Federal Govt, benefit the ‘people’ ? and 2) how is the fact that 320,000 workers had the chance to invest in the company, a bad thing ?
    Just a small note : It was NOT Lula who “discovered” the subsalt (or pre-salt) reserves. PB knew of them already in the 60s/70s (drilling in shallow water off Sergipe, and in Campos, RJ) - problem was that technology back then did not allow drilling in much deeper waters. A few numbers : in May 2008, before Lula started screwing with the company, its value on the stock market was R$ 510 Billion; in Jan 2016 (still under Dilma) it had dropped to R$ 74 Billion (losing 85% of its market value), with a gross debt of R$ 386 Billion at the end of 2016.
    Just another side note, a few months ago PB had to pay US investors about US$ 10 billion, to settle a case that could get much worse if not settled out of court. Today, we know where ‘nationalization’ leads to…at one hell of a cost to the Brazilian worker.

    Apr 11th, 2018 - 10:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • :o))

    @JB:

    REF: “let's see what happened to Petrobras, ............and after it was“nationalized” by Lula, in 2007/8”:

    Don't you know that the back-and-forth privatization and nationalization of industries are the best ways of making a quick buck? How else can the offshore banks flourish?

    Apr 12th, 2018 - 10:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    @:o))
    The privatization of PB in 2001 involved capitalization, which did not involve the sale of anything except for shares...so not much room for rampant corruption there......the nationalization on the other hand, involved the government taking taxpayer money to 'buy' back control...plenty of room for corruption. Besides the latter, Lula had to nationalize it in (2007) order to control the company at all levels, if he wanted his corruption scheme to work - which it did until the “lavajato” caught on to it.
    And what's more, how DID Lula nationalize it ? first, by 'selling' the (future) drilling rights of the subsalt reserves to PB, for a 'mere' 5 billion barrels of oil, at US$ 15.00 /barrel, a total of US$ 75 billion....second : overnight, the Federal government became the creditor of PB, to the tune of US$ 75 billion, which obviously would not be 'realized' until the oil was effectively pulled out of the bottom of the sea....Third, the government then gave back US$ 45 billion of the “unrealized” income, to PB, to regain control of the company once more, without disembursing one penny...not good for PB, which did not see one cent of the US$ 45 billion - and which would have been essential for PB to prepare itself to 'attack' the subsalt (investmt), but the cash payment (to regain control) only existed on paper.

    And anyway, EM refers to the “privatization of public SERVICES”, not State-run companies, which besides being two very different things, experience has shown us that the Brazilian government is not a good administrator of companies (due to corruption, inefficiency, waste).....All State-run companies, whether financial institutions or industrial ones, are used politically, to fund corruption - why d'you think that the political parties 'go to war' when it comes down to the political indications in State-run companies ?? Just take a look at Bco Brasil, CEF, Fundos de Pensão, BNDES, Eletrobras, Nuclebras, and the list goes on....

    Apr 12th, 2018 - 06:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • :o))

    @JB:

    That's what Instituto Lulla used to teach in the Training Programs! REF:
    http://www.robsonpiresxerife.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/A-CHARGE-ESTELIONATO-POL%C3%8DTICO.jpg

    Apr 13th, 2018 - 02:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    @:o))
    Right, “Why choose the path of crime if there are legal ways to be dishonest ?”


    @DT (cont. of Rouseff, Lula furious..)

    Right, “didn’t advertise it”. FSP intended to transform S.Am.into 1 country, through a slow insidious process, filling the heads of the poor with socialist ideas, creating a silent revolution which most wouldn’t see, until too late. The S.American version of communism : everything for the 'social' good, but not really ; just a civilian dictatorship, with FSP leaders in charge.

    Collective farms, worked by communities. No private ownership of land. “Could be kind of interesting to see what happened - as long as it's not here”…right, as long as not here. Private companies would do as ordered...or be nationalized ; ex: in VZ, supermarkets being obliged to sell at below cost…or be confiscated. Good example of the easily predictable failure such an experiment would be.

    Smaller, less ambitious regional programs were already addressing the hunger problem (mainly SP), but Lula, went just far enough (BF) to speak directly to the people’s stomachs, instead of, at the same time, investing heavily in education, which would eventually take care of the hunger problem by itself. The BF was just enough to feed the poor, and no more. Obviously well planned, as such an ambitious plan needed people who'd be grateful for the crumbs, and be easy to manipulate. Many who support Lula may not be fanatics, are aware he’s a crook but don’t care…they're unable to realize that the way to a better life is not thru handouts, but as they only think in terms of “tomorrow”, they'll vote for someone whom they believe will solve their problems immediately.

    Lula never even graduated from secondary school, and in past interviews, given before he was elected, he admitted he hated reading - difficult and boring. Even later, as president, he proudly claimed he hadn’t finished school, and saw no need for it.

    You’re right , in Portuguese you pronounce what you see.

    Apr 14th, 2018 - 03:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • :o))

    @JB:

    As far as the advocates representing the crooks are concerned; The Highly Paid Advocates are smarter, far more experienced, better educated, & better paid than the “Politically Affiliated/Appointed” Judges [who are MOSTLY corrupt as well]. Hence, such advocates being the elite of the elites - as a gesture of respect - not only they do deserve their FAT FEES but also; also deserve that some loopholes to be NAMED after them! Isn't it?

    Apr 15th, 2018 - 03:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    @JB
    “Collective farms, worked by communities. No private ownership of land.”

    We've seen that done in the communist countries and it was a disaster. I was talking about what you mentioned - no property other than your own home, which I assume would allow for family farms. So everyone could own their home, or buy some land and build one. It would depend how it was implemented, but I imagine land would become much cheaper. Small farms would surely be inefficient so it would be bad for agriculture. Dunno how mines would work, and what about offices etc for businesses? In Brazil, you certainly wouldn't want the government administering the remaining land, but in the US the Federal government owns and controls a lot of land and it seems to work okay.

    Why do they want one country in South America? So they can be a superpower like the USA? I'd have thought Brazil was big enough already if they could get the economy over the hump.

    “Obviously well planned”

    I doubt it, there seems to have been quite a bit of trial and error early in Lula's presidency. Once he found a policy that worked and was popular, not surprising he would stick with it.

    Re reading, I never would have sympathised until I started learning Spanish. It's so difficult and tiring to try and read it, I'd much rather avoid it even though I ought to practice. As far as I recall from childhood, reading was more like deciphering and sounding out words and then putting the sentence together in your head, until one day I suddenly 'got it' and could read. Which language did you learn to read and write in first?

    Apr 18th, 2018 - 05:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    @DT
    “I was talking about what you mentioned - no property other than your own home”…the concept of ‘your own home’ would probably be applied for urban areas. Family farms, run privately, would seem to contradict the idea of ‘collective’ or ‘community’ farms…
    ”For everyone to be able to buy their own home” – doubt they’d be allowed to buy land - people would need to work and be able to save, which would require an infrastructure absent over most of LatAm.
    In the US, think government only owns/ controls land in order to preserve it, not to compete with private agriculture.

    “Why do they want one country in South America?” the first thing that getting rid of frontiers would do, is give the people a sense of not ‘belonging’, and is the first step, IMO, towards de-structuring society, making them easier to control (people would probably start looking for some kind of central ‘guidance’).
    Being relatively poor compared to the first world, their job was already half done. One thing for sure though, it would NEVER be a superpower because of the populist way it would be run. When I say “well planned”, I meant that they had a clear objective….getting to it successfully is another story. Luckily, it failed.

    Learned English (speaking it) at home. Grammar and writing came later at school. Portuguese started in school, and eventually pushed Spanish out of my life, which I only ‘spoke’ at home with my parents, and until about 10 years old.

    Apr 18th, 2018 - 11:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    I can't understand why anyone would want collective farms, it's been tried several times and always turned into a disaster. What would make more sense would be what was done in the US: the government promised to give a certain smallish number of acres to anyone who would build a house and live on it for AFAIR 3 years. That way many people were able to get farms, feed their families and make the land productive. But that only worked because there was a lot of 'empty' land in the US (because they stole it from the Indians). I'm sure it would have been better for Brazil if the government had done the same rather than hand out large estates to the aristocracy, but it's not so practical today.

    And yeah, I think the US government mostly owns land to preserve it. Who owns the Amazon in Brazil? I'd say that needs a lot more preserving from loggers and miners than it's getting.

    I would have thought the idea of getting rid of frontiers would be to convince people they belonged to some larger entity, but what you suggested might well be the actual result. Depends how much those countries have in common, I guess All the others apart from Brazil share the same language, yet they never seemed able to unite in the past. And could it be a superpower? The USSR was one despite its awful leadership and ropey economy, and the suffering of its people, so why not a powerful populist 'empire'? But even if it never could be, that doesn't mean they believe it

    Does that mean you never learned to read and write Spanish? I imagine it's not that hard since Spanish and Portuguese are pretty similar, but imagine if you went to a state school in Brazil and were only taught Portuguese. Would you be able to read and write English? It's the same alphabet but the spellings are so difficult, I'd guess you could pick up reading without being taught but writing, or rather spelling, might be more of a problem.

    Apr 19th, 2018 - 10:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!