MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Temer and Meirelles discussing with congress leaders budget deficit and cabinet positions
Brazil's government delayed the announcement of looser budget targets for 2017 and 2018, previously expected for Monday, as authorities struggled to estimate revenues given strong opposition in Congress to tax hikes. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesFiscal discipline: Fiscal OR any other discipline is Non-Existent!
Aug 15th, 2017 - 07:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0WAIT for the increase in - % of & Nº of - taxes AFTER election!
#ForaTemer. https://twitter.com/AngelaMilanese/status/897830186313543680
Aug 17th, 2017 - 02:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0@JB
Aug 18th, 2017 - 10:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0RE Your post in http://en.mercopress.com/2017/08/14/pm-may-supports-falklands-self-determination-calls-on-argentina-to-meet-september-joint-communique/comments
I wonder how much of that 'cost of Brazil' is due to bribes? But probably a lot is simply inefficiency. Come to think, that anti-bribery training we had to do was started around the time the company opened an office in Brazil...
Do you think the top 1% in Brazil have a better standard of living than in the US? If so that would explain why they are not eager to change the status quo.
Hmm, you say Brazil's industry used to be competitive but now it suffers from low productivity. Sounds contradictory, or have things just gone downhill that much? And I'm not sure there were many companies exporting back to the US from Mexico before NAFTA. I thought that was a result of the treaty removing tariffs.
I agree small scale farming can't compete with modern agriculture, but even mechanised agriculture has a hard time competing with US subsidies. This is one of the reasons countries have tariffs in the first place. If the market in Brazil is opened to the US, you can expect a lot more of those small farms to become unviable and a lot more farmers to turn up in the cities.
Didn't know they were trying to bring back mandatory union contributions, I haven't seen anything in the press here. Personally I thought that was one of the least objectionable things in the bill, but not surprising it's the one the unions protest the most.
NO need to get disheartened! Here comes another “operation”:
Aug 18th, 2017 - 12:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.brazilsun.com/news/254393302/peru-warns-of-new-drug-hot-spot-at-brazil-colombia-border
@DT
Aug 18th, 2017 - 06:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's virtually impossible to quantify the money wasted on bribes, or money taken out of the country/economy ilegally, but I recall a study , of well over 10 years ago, which estimated it in the dozens of billions of dollars per year. I would think the inefficient infrastructure and bureacracy accounts for most of the unnecessary cost incurred.
The top 1% in Brazil, without a doubt can lead a more extravagant lifestyle, if they so wish.
They are at the top of the earning ladder, and the least affected by the cost of living. I'm not sure, but have heard several times, that the biggest difference in the UK, between the highest/lowest salaries in a company, is 20 times....if correct, rather more reasonable than here, where in large companies this difference can easily reach 100 times. There are examples of absurd salaries in the public sector as well....aside from the politicians,
who make sure they're well paid, in the Senate in Brasilia, jobs usually considered menial elsewhere, pay salaries of US$ 5,000/month (parking valets, elevator operators, waiters) ...made possible by a self-serving system whereby almost anything is a justification for absurd add-ons, until they are receiving far more than they deserve. Some jugdes, not even of the higher instances, pull in well over US$ 100,000 per month, all legal and foreseen in the 'generous' legislation.
The fact Brazilian industry exported well, is a sign it used to be competitive...today, not so much.
I'm saying that most US companies opened in Mexico 'after' NAFTA, with the purpose of exporting back to the US (with lower labour costs).
As I've mentioned several times, all the recent protests against Temer (“fora Temer”) and the labour reform were staged solely by the unions, “using” the people to give an impression of legitimacy, to defend their disgusting privileges, made possible by the exhorbitant revenue from the contribution. Understandable why they won't let it go,
@JB
Aug 19th, 2017 - 02:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“dozens of billions of dollars per year”
Ouch. That would easily pay the whole budget for the BF with plenty left over for other programs, and unlike the BF money which is spent in Brazil and still contributes to the economy, a lot of that money is sitting in offshore tax havens doing no good.
It's not true that the biggest difference between highest and lowest salaries in the UK is 20 times, rather some people have been campaigning for a law on it, limiting the salary executives may pay themselves based on the lowest or average salary in the company. In the last 20 years the difference has increased dramatically - and certainly hasn't improved the performance of the companies in question. The UK has high income inequality for a developed country, which may be one reason we have so many problems compared to our neighbours.
I don't think there would be any point making such a law in Brazil though, since the executives would just find some other way of paying themselves.
Sounds like these jobs in the senate exist to serve as rewards for the politicians' supporters, and again there's not much point trying to cut the legal excessive salaries until you have stopped the illegal payments.
And is it better to be rich in Brazil then, vs rich in the US? I always thought it was better for everyone in a country if it was richer as a whole. Less crime, less social unrest, and nicer surroundings, even if you don't care whether people are starving in the streets.
Considering Temer's dire personal popularity, the fact that he has been let off being prosecuted despite everyone hearing incriminating recordings, and that he is pushing through some generally unpopular reforms, not to mention how he took over as President, I don't think it makes any sense to say the unions are using people to protest. Unions or no, we should expect a lot of protests in the circumstances, and you can't deny they have good reasons for it too.
@DT
Aug 19th, 2017 - 11:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Tks for clarifying the difference between salaries. You're right, bzlns can be very creative when it comes down to 'helping' themselves.
The salaries / benefits of the 3 branches of govt - executive, legislative, judiciary - all follow different rules, which just favors the lack of transparency and serves to confuse the public; this stems from the fact each has the power to decide its own salaries etc...and worse, in a domino effect, any increases etc, trickle down to all those below them. If the Supreme Court judges get an increase, so does every other judge in the country.
The wealthy, anywhere, are a class apart from the rest ; despite the fact there are many more wealthy in the US than in Brazil , the contrast doesn't appear as shocking there because the Americans, on the whole, are far better off than the Brazilians. Differently to the US, in Brazil the cause and effect of these differences (poor v. rich) seem to be far more closely linked....here, the rich are usually rich at the expense of the people. Unless you specify income level, it's hard to say where it’s better to be rich (US or BZL), but generally speaking, due to the general standard of living in the US, I'd say it's better to be rich in the US, in that it's safer...
The unions' protests were exclusively to defend their own privilieges, nothing else. There are 16,491 unions here, (5,251 patronal, and) 11,240 of them supposedly representing the workers. The 2nd country in the ranking is S. Africa, with 191. They proliferate (like political parties - 33) solely for the appropriation of public funds...the workers don't even know 95% of them exist, but they received millions in funds for doing absolutely nothing. Those protesting for them, won't share 1 cent of it....they get R$ 40 and a sandwich; the abolished 'contribuição sindical' collected US$ 1,15 billion, and now they want to reinstate it, increasing it 4 times, to US$ 4,5 billion...still think they care about the worker ?
“each has the power to decide its own salaries etc”
Aug 20th, 2017 - 03:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh yeah, that's the root of the problem. Our politicians were able to do that until recently, but they knew it would look bad to increase them too much so they fiddled the expenses system instead. Now there is an independent commission, which still recommended giving them a big pay rise. They probably do deserve one, but no more so than all the nurses, teachers, policemen etc who keep getting below inflation rises or none at all.
And it's the same with these executives, they just vote each other bigger and bigger rises and bonuses, regardless of how well the company is doing and how little the ordinary employees are paid. Even when their leadership is disastrous and the company goes bust, they still get their to keep their huge payouts.
“here, the rich are usually rich at the expense of the people”
So, I guess that's why they don't like to see money going to the poor, as they think it works the other way around, too. You'd think people could look at the USA, or Europe, and see how much better things are when everyone is doing okay and has the chance to get a decent education and succeed in life. But they only seem to be interested in how much money they can skim off for themselves. It's a shortsighted view.
What is a patronal union, and how do they decide which workers' union gets the compulsory contributions from people who aren't a member of any?
I don't know if most - or any - of the unions care about the worker, and I don't see how you can know either, unless you work for them. There are at least a few 'real', large unions with lots of members, like the one Lula worked for, right? I suppose they do things other than strike, like negotiate pay increases?
You must have had to pay this compulsory contribution too, did you join a union to try and get your money's worth?
On the right track - FINALLY:
Aug 21st, 2017 - 08:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0https://www.humorpolitico.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Brasil-nos-Trilhos-768x580.jpg
@DT
Aug 21st, 2017 - 09:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Agree. Many top executives are as free with other people’s money as politicians are, but it’s not necessarily the execs that “don't like to see money going to the poor”…while they are ok with the idea of exploiting the people, and getting richer by the day, it’s more the politicians that are persuaded to vote legislation that benefits them (companies), because that’s where the bribes come from…or, to be more exact, they (which favor both politicians/executives alike) come from overprices, paid by the taxpayer. In a civilized country, the idea of social justice is more ingrained in the minds of the people…the top layer of the Brazilian elite is content to let the politicians do their dirty work, and the latter are only too pleased to oblige. The politicians go one further – they have long learned that it’s easier to fool uneducated people…that’s why I insist that education - or the lack of it, in Brazil’s case – is the main factor for positive change.
Patronal union – not sure if the name’s right, but it’s the union that aggregates the companies from the the same economic segment…as versus the workers’ unions. They didn’t decide how the ‘contribuição sindical’ was distributed – it was the government. They simply deducted it from one’s paycheck, & transfer it to the govt, which in turn passed it to the main union centrals, once again passing it on down the line…and as I said before, their accounts are private and confidential. The leaders all pay themselves handsome salaries, and once a year, on Labor Day, throw a party for the workers, where the main distraction is political speeches. And at the end of each year, they pretend to negotiate the workers’ yearly increase with the patronal union…
Never joined the union.. if I had, they’d oblige me to pay more…and for what ? only their well-being, no doubt. But it is clear that in Brazil, they are only concerned with themselves, otherwise, why not eliminate the 11,000 unions that do nothing?
I guess that's the other problem caused by widespread bribery, apart from stealing billions from the taxpayer. The politicians make laws to benefit whichever company paid them most, instead of what would be good for the country as a whole. I don't think more education would solve the problem directly, since you'd still have the problem that much of the money and therefore the power is concentrated in only a few hands. If they didn't bribe the politicians directly they would find some other way to reward them. But if education helped the people be more productive and make more money, then the politicians would have to pay them more attention.
Aug 22nd, 2017 - 10:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0So basically there are unions for employers in an industry as well as for employees? And they are (were) all funded by this compulsory contribution which is distributed to them by a government department. It's a strange system, and I don't know that this form of dependence on the government is a good thing for the unions. When they are directly funded by their members they are more likely to represent their members' interests. Still, I guess we will find out next year whether removing this system does any harm to workers' negotiating power. I'm sure the Brazilian unions will still have much more powers than British ones; our government went too far in weakening them IMO, and now want to go even further.
I'm not surprised you didn't join one, they seem to only be popular in certain professions, mainly the public sector and blue collar workers. I've never really known why. Possibly something to do with one employer having a large number of workers at a similar level?
@DT
Aug 22nd, 2017 - 06:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We agree that the current system favors and works on corruption, and that the resistance of those at the top to end it, is what perpetuates it. While I firmly believe that improving education is one of, if not the most important single factor to combat corruption and reduce the amount of dishonest politicians, I fully realize that it’s a long process…only when the people, as a whole, are able to understand and are aware of what’s going on, and decide not to tolerate corruption, will most of the corrupt be removed from politics…otherwise, any short term progress will be annulled. The concentration of money, and consequently of power, in the hands of (relatively) few, will always exist, and not only in Brazil, but as long as the really poor are becoming better-off, in a self-sustainable fashion, I reckon it’s going in the right direction.
Yes, for both employers/ employees have unions. Only the workers’ unions received the contribution. They don’t depend on the government…while the government DOES take a small part, most goes to the unions which have no obligation to explain how they use the funds…so, registering a union, even without representation, is a good business, and no strings attached ?They don’t have to answer to anyone, except theoretically the workers, but if not transparent, what the use ? If not reinstated in any form, other than voluntary contributions, what you’ll see is only a few unions, actually working in the workers’ interests.
Obviously , the unions which survive will be those with a larger employee base, and that are recognized by the worker of being of some utility.
“Living Abroad Becomes Attractive Option to Escape Crisis in Brazil”: REF:
Aug 22nd, 2017 - 09:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/business/2017/08/1911612-living-abroad-becomes-attractive-option-to-escape-crisis-in-brazil.shtml
@JB
Aug 22nd, 2017 - 09:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Doesn't the corruption in politics follow from the corruption in everyday life though? And you said no one could do anything about it because they would just hurt themselves, yet presumably the people in your line of work were educated?
Anyway, it's true there are rich people and especially corporations in all countries, but inequality is particularly bad in Brazil. This research by the OECD says that reducing income inequality would boost economic growth... and that the most important factor involved is education:
http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/inequality-hurts-economic-growth.htm
The union system in Brazil doesn't make much sense to me. If anyone can register a union and get a share of the money without doing anything... firstly, why doesn't everyone do it? Secondly, the number of workers does not change, so don't the new unions take a portion of funding away from the existing ones? I would think the real unions would strongly object to this.
I suppose the big unions that are allied with the PT will survive, but they will lose a lot of their funding. Whatever else it does, it is also a good way for the government to damage the opposition.
DT
Aug 22nd, 2017 - 10:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think it’s more the other way around. So many people see their elected representatives stealing, and getting away with it, that they too start feeling its ok ...Only problem is that the people don’t have the immunity that the politicians do. In the cases I mentioned, carriers giving kickbacks to shippers, it was clearly a lose/lose situation (to expose it)….and I suppose the same conditions are created in many circumstances, depending on the power those negotiating the deals have…In shipping, the executives agreeing to the kickbacks (under pressure to get the business) as well as most of those receiving them, had decent, or higher education…suppose it all comes down to what their price is.
In the old days, the 'people' were generally honest, but today you can see that honesty has been losing an uphill battle...the result of some polls would surprise you ....you'd learn how many think it's ok to break the law - as long as they think they can get away with it - and how many think that to be honest is to be an idiot.
Looks like the OECD study confirms what I've been saying all along...and I didn't need any studies to reach the same conclusion – by just observing the attitudes between people with and without a decent education.
Believe me, people try to register unions, and they do…why d’you think we have 11,500 worker unions ? 11,000 with no purpose other than to steal. That’s exactly what needs to end. Same thing with the political parties….currently 33, but dozens more waiting in line to be registered….but given the present chaos and difficulty to govern with so many parties for hire, I don’t think they’ll manage.
Sure, I would agree that the more people to share the cake, the less each will get, but I’m sure they all get enough to not worry about their neighbor. Hopefully, the (bigger) unions that exist for a purpose other than stealing, will now support the reform and realize it had to happen.
Perhaps you are right that it filters down from the top. If people see those in power - who should be setting a good example - breaking the law with no consequence, why would they respect it themselves?
Aug 23rd, 2017 - 01:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But I'm not cure cleaning up the top will fix the rest, because you will still have that lose-lose situation where anyone who doesn't join in is worse off.
The OECD study was about economics though, not corruption. More money going to the bottom 40% led to better education, which gave them more opportunities to make money in future. And each individual making more money led to faster economic growth for society (kinda unsurprisingly).
You say there is a big difference in the attitudes of people with and without education, yet the well-educated executives in the shipping industry all took part in the kickback scheme too. I'm not seeing what the difference is.
Anyway, personal observation is a good way to form a theory, but you need studies aka evidence to prove it. I wish politicians in general were more willing to follow the evidence on what works and doesn't instead of their respective ideologies.
So why didn't the 500 real unions get together and demand a change in the rules to make it harder to register? They'd get a hell of a lot more money each if they only had to share with 500 others instead of 11,500.
The unions that survive will probably need to ask their members for more money, but maybe they can recruit some new ones since workers in general will presumably have less protection now.
@DT
Aug 23rd, 2017 - 07:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Quite frankly, not that I condone it, but I'm not really concerned about corruption that goes on between private companies…it’s not taxpayer money. Brazil’s ruling elite (Congress etc), still hasn’t really come around to buying the idea that basic education is a must. South Korea is an example of what taking education seriously, can do.
The kickbacks in the shipping industry was a specific example I had to put up with, that’s why I mentioned it, but we all know it goes on in loads of business sectors. The attitudes differ mainly in that the more educated – excluding the majority of those in politics – despite being in positions more exposed to corruption, where it occurs at higher levels within companies, are capable of realizing the harm it does – which does not mean that they aren’t above taking bribes - whereas the less educated, besides usually not aware of the full extent of the problem it creates, are less exposed to it - but are easier to subvert, given their less favourable financial situation.
The moment politicians put ideology before economics, their decisions won't be the best ...here, many proposals, in their original form, are good, but after they have been disfigured in Congress, to accomodate personal interests, the outcome resembles nothing like it was meant to be.
“Why the 500 real unions didn’t get together and…”…I don’t know…or perhaps they didn’t want to attract too much attention to themselves, which could turn around and bite them in the arse ? all I know is that the other 95% exist for only one reason. The more traditional unions that were formed, will probably manage to carry-on, bringing more members into their ranks, but they are going to have to work to get the recognition they need to survive....these unions already “represent” the great majority of the workers, so their protection doesn't seem to be at risk...the unions that don't represent anyone, will carry-on representing no-one, until they disappear.
Hmmm. It's highly likely the everyday corruption also does a great deal of harm to the country. Either it raises costs to customers or it reduces profits for businesses - neither of those is good for the economy. Also bribes are not taxed, I wonder how much is lost each year that must be made up by other, more honest taxpayers?
Aug 24th, 2017 - 02:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0From your description, educated people know that bribes are wrong but take them anyway, so I'm not seeing a big difference in practice. I suppose if enough people realised the damage they do, they might get together and find a way to stop it.
I think Brazil's problems may be more caused by special interests than ideology, but still we need to take a more evidence based approach. If theory says a certain strategy should work, but it has been tried before and failed, well, probably the theory is wrong, even if we don't know why. This is as true of economists as anyone else. Of course, we have to agree first on what is the desired outcome: economic growth? lower poverty? less crime?
As for the unions, maybe they didn't want to attract attention, or maybe they were working together and run by the same few people, or maybe the system is a bit more complicated than that. You never worked for a union so wouldn't have detailed knowledge. Hopefully you are right that the useful unions will be okay and can continue to do their jobs.
I guess your Conferences did reduce competition but had other advantages for the exporters. But it sounds like the rates were distorted if some cargo was more desirable than others; the rates themselves should have reflected that, rather than companies competing by paying kickbacks. Anyway, I hope they do continue the investigations even if it's a slow process, and get some new politicians elected who a bit cleaner.
@DT
Aug 24th, 2017 - 05:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ok, if systematic, the cost of corruption between private firms 'might' increase costs to the consumer, might even reduce profits, but it’s nothing like political corruption, deviating billions which affect the providing of essential public services which are then not offered. Re bribing, let’s put it this way - who would be more likely to be bribed in order to gain some illicit or immoral advantage ? the director of a company, state-run or otherwise, or the garbage man ?
As for the people getting together to stop it, it’s like drying ice…it doesn’t work, Brazilian society is too fragmented in all sorts of different interests to really care …it explains why soccer and carnival, to the majority, are more important than cleaning up the corruption. Trial and error is a great way to learn to do the right thing, or at least stop doing the thing that gives undesired results, but while people stand to gain by doing the wrong thing, they will keep on, regardless of the negative effects.…and any desired outcome is not mutually exclusive, they can all be pursued simultaneously.
Re unions, maybe a director of one wanted to register another, to increase income for the now 2 unions….who knows, but it all comes down to greed and being a crook. Just like political parties…how many politicians, at least in Brazil, pissed-off with being number 2 within their party, have registered their own so that they can be the big chief ?
Re cargo rates (in contrs) : for ex., paper - heavy, large volumes, low value = low freight ; electronic goods - bulky and relatively light, high value = high freight….the rates followed logic, and it was the market (carriers & shippers) that then determined what was good, or bad. On the other hand, some carrier might want the paper, as a way to reposition contrs to another port…there are several variables, and the rates, one way or the other, usually take them into account.
No doubt the political corruption is worse, especially for involving public money, but the private corruption adds up too. Where do you think the money stolen comes from, if not from profits or paid by the customer?
Aug 24th, 2017 - 10:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No doubt it's true that higher up people are more likely to be bribed, although they have less need of the money. But I'm not saying people with less education are more honest, just that education alone will not stop people taking bribes, or asking for them. You need a change in the culture.
Why do you think society is so fragmented in Brazil? Is it because it's such a big country, or because people live in very different conditions between rural and urban, rich and poor? Or something else?
“while people stand to gain by doing the wrong thing, they will keep on, regardless of the negative effects.”
Too true. And sometimes the desired outcomes are mutually exclusive, but mostly it is a question of priorities and disagreeing on the best method to get there. You and Enrique are pretty opposite on the political spectrum, do you think you could agree on the outcome you want?
Is being the top dog a common reason to form a new party? That's quite funny. I don't think it's good for politics to have parties that revolve around a single individual, even (or especially) in big parties like the PT. No one should be indispensable.
I don't think I quite followed your description of the rates, but it seems to me that if carriers are fighting over some type of cargo then the rate should be set lower for it, until it is no longer preferable to the others.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!