MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Ecuador sentences 20 Chinese fishermen for poaching; Beijing cautious about how to react
Overfishing has given rise to a diplomatic trouble between China and Ecuador. In mid-August, Ecuador detained a Chinese vessel in the Galapagos Islands and found 6.600 sharks on board. The 20 Chinese fishermen have been sentenced up to four years for illegally fishing and to pay US$ 5.9 million. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesOf course, if the Chinks say so, the fishermen must have been on a cruise, and while partying, drifted inexplicably into Ecuadorian territorial waters....
Aug 31st, 2017 - 08:40 pm - Link - Report abuse +1RE: http://en.mercopress.com/2017/08/24/ex-president-lula-admits-he-might-have-to-step-down-as-candidate-in-2018/comments
Sep 03rd, 2017 - 05:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Inflated bills from hospitals was about what I expected, and why do you need 5,500 counties, all with Mayors? Brazil's population is what, 3 times the UK's? Seems excessive. Good if the police are finally investigating though, I just hope THEY are not also corrupt.
“Provided the funds actually end up in infrastructure projects and not in someone's bank account, of course I'm in favour of government spending”
Not everyone is, especially in places like the US. But Brazil clearly has a much more desperate need for infrastructure. And privatisation may help, but it's not a panacea. What we have seen here is sometimes it goes okay and the private companies make (often big) profits, and other times they go bust and the government (taxpayer) ends up picking up the tab anyway and bailing them out. It's not much good for citizens if the private companies get all the profits and the taxpayers are stuck with all the risks of failure.
@DT
Sep 03rd, 2017 - 09:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Considering Brazil's population (last counted at 207 million), and its area (8.5 million sq. km), and the politicians' hunger for stealing, the more counties there are - even if they don't generate enough taxes to keep themselves - the better. Many of them, created only for political reasons (direct influence over the local populations), use up all the money they get from either the State or the federal government, in the payroll, none being being left over for social improvements. And I know because our country home is located in one such municipality.
Privatization may not be a guarantee of a perfect result, but rarely in cases where the government is involved, do things work well. And if the government's regulating agencies did their jobs, the private companies would be kept in check. Here in Brazil cannot recall anything at the moment, which backfired because of privatization...much to the contrary, ex: PB in 2001, opened 51% of its capital, and in 5/6 years was worth over R$ 700 billion on the stock market....today, after the political use of the company (started in 2006/7 by Lula and the PT, and later on the PMDB) with all directors being appointed by political parties, it's worth less than R$ 100 billion. Sea and airports have suffered in much the same way, because the government hasn't enough money to invest...this is another thing that Temer is trying to correct. In all advanced countries these activities are performed by private groups, and work well. Plus, the less pies the government has it's fingers in, the less chance for corruption.
A bit more than 3 times the population then, but damn, all that space! England is so full you can never get away from other people, and it's a problem for building anything because there are just no isolated locations. What do these mayors even do, apart from steal?
Sep 04th, 2017 - 10:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0“rarely in cases where the government is involved, do things work well”
This very much depends on the government, so for Brazil it's probably true. But in the UK Blair created all these Public-Private partnerships which were supposed to save public money but ended up costing more in the long term, and then there is the rail system which was nationalised as British Rail and from what I hear was pretty shitty, so they privatised it in pieces. They had to renationalise the company that manages the tracks because it went bust, and several of the franchises were abandoned by the companies managing them as they weren't profitable, leaving the government to pick up the pieces. One franchise had such dire punctuality figures they gave up and cut their timetable by two-thirds to 'fix' the problem, and fares have risen massively everywhere.
But since the companies running the trains do not have control of the tracks, a lot of the problems are out of their hands anyway. It's a mess.
Another thing that was privatised was the oil companies, way back in the 80s. Someone did an analysis comparing Norway and the UK and found Norway made vastly more money from their share of the north sea oil, and one of the main reasons was that they did not privatise their oil company. But the Norwegian government seems pretty competent and probably has minimal corruption; this is a country where you can freely request to see any citizen's tax return and the media routinely publish these details for politicians and businessmen.
@DT
Sep 04th, 2017 - 06:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Right, Brazil’s territory is enormous, which in a way favors the lack of control in counties distant from the big centres …“What do these mayors even do, apart from steal?” good question, but the simple answer is “not much”. Most didn’t get into politics because they are selfless and felt an urge to help their fellow beings…that would be utopian.
Well, I think you been fed enough information on Brazil , to realize that in many ways it still resembles a 3rd world, banana republic, that has got some things right, and lots of things wrong. The dominant mentality is the cause….and not of only the ‘elite’…the ‘people’ aren’t much better. As I said, privatization may not solve all the problems, but in Brazil, the segments that have been, are miles ahead of where they’d be had they remained State-run. And once privatized, the private sector is quicker in taking corrective measures than the government.
Some services, in some countries, depending on the existing infrastructure of that segment, might be better left alone, but there is always room for improvement, something which typically, people in government run services are against…the unions all rear their ugly heads and start off their scare tactics to get everyone against any changes…even if for the better, or even for a matter of survival.
But to hand the running of the trains, and the management of the tracks, to two different companies, is a birdbrain solution…
Regarding the example of the oil industry, seems Norway’s government is far more competent than the UK’s….But each case is different, with different circumstances influencing and affecting the outcome of decisions to privatize or otherwise.
True, the isolation must make centralised government hard. I suppose not many people live in the rain forest and most are in the coastal cities and south? I was surprised to find out that São Paulo is not only significantly bigger than London but the largest city in the Americas; Rio is a lot more famous even though it's not the capital now.
Sep 05th, 2017 - 09:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0Privatisation works well when there can be competition, like with phone companies. Less so with rail services, or things like water where there is only one delivery system. And privatising essential services is where you risk bailouts if it all goes wrong, because the government can't allow them to stop running. Guess it makes sense to take into account how competent (and corrupt) the gvmt is compared to private companies though.
Also one of the big objections to privatising things is that it allows another kind of corruption, where a politician sells off state assets cheaply to their friends, then after finishing in politics, they conveniently get a cushy job on the board. Unlike taking huge bribes, this is hard to prove and easier to get away with in countries like the UK.
Rail routes in the UK are split into about 20 franchises which companies compete for, and they are awarded to whichever is cheapest, not which has the best performance or customer satisfaction. We had a scandal about the bidding process a few years ago, too. And the publicly owned company that was created to take over abandoned franchises was not allowed to rebid for them, despite the fact many others are partly owned by other countries' governments. Seems daft to me that the French and Dutch taxpayers are profiting from our railways but not British ones. Also the company in charge of the tracks was renationalised after a fatal crash caused by their poor maintenance.
And after all that I can't really argue Norway's government isn't more competent. They were very lucky to be handed such a huge windfall, but that's no guarantee; just look at Venezuela.
@DT
Sep 05th, 2017 - 03:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The majority of the population live in the south & south eastern regions, and the further north you go, is more concentrated in the larger (coastal) cities….the countryside, at one time more densely populated, has been slowly and steadily abandoned, people believing (erroneously) that they’ll do better in a city…but without the necessary skills to survive decently, end up living in slums.
Rio may be more famous than SP, but nowadays for the wrong reasons. The city of São Paulo has 12 million inhabitants ; the greater SP, 21 million ; the state of SP, 45 million.
Regarding possible benefits received later by (a) politician(s) selling off state assets, the process is not conducted by individuals, but by the government committees established for that purpose, but cannot recall what you suggest, ever happening. But this kind of corruption has been seen in regulatory agencies…an executive from a private health company gets appointed as head of the Public Health Agency…while there, he tries to push through legislation to favour the companies, in detriment of the consumer, and when his term is up, he goes back to the private sector to enjoy a “cushy job”. The worst they can be accused of is incompetence, because as you said, it’s hard to prove, even more so because any final decision is not his alone.
In the case of the UK, seems that nationalization didn’t always work out too well.
You’re right about oil though, Norway v. VZ, but the ‘guarantee’ , in Norway, seems to have been the people themselves
Wow, São Paulo state has more people than the whole of Argentina, even though it's only a little bigger than the UK. And Wikipedia says it's richer than Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Bolivia combined, and would be in the top 20 for GDP if it was an independent nation. Maybe you guys really should declare independence.
Sep 05th, 2017 - 09:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What's it like living in such a big city? I always avoided London because you can't get out to the countryside in any reasonable time, and having so many strange people around makes me claustrophobic. I wouldn't mind living in a smaller city though.
Chances for MPs to profit would be more common in the public-private partnerships I'd say, as they are smaller and receive less scrutiny. But there is suspicion around the larger privatisations too. Anyway the thing you mentioned with regulations also happens a lot, both in agencies and with MPs who pass legislation favourable to an industry, and then are given a job in that industry later.
The UK has had problems with both nationalisation and privatisation. I don't want to bring British Rail back, because everyone says it was crap and there was a chronic lack of investment, but the current system isn't working well either. Other countries in Europe seem to manage this a lot better, their trains are much cheaper and more reliable too, but I don't know what they have done differently.
Norway is a lot richer than its neighbours because of the oil, but it had the sense to start a sovereign investment fund and not get so dependant on oil money that it destroyed the rest of the economy. It must be people/culture that makes the difference; in all the Scandinavian countries they are very keen on equality and sharing the wealth, but they don't go in for the sort of short-term and shortsighted policies that Chavez favoured, corruption is low so they trust politicians to spend their money wisely, and there was much less inequality and a more homogeneous society in the first place.
@DT
Sep 06th, 2017 - 04:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The state of S.Paulo alone, generates 1/3 of Brazil’s GNP. With the 3 southern states (RS, SC, PR), this rises to 50%. Declaring independence from the rest of Brazil is not a new idea, but being a Federation, it’s somewhat difficult to put into practice. I reckon it’s OK living in São Paulo, you find just about anything you want, be it in products, services or fine dining…from where I live (about 5 miles from downtown) to our country home, takes 45 minutes, door-to-door (33 miles), so getting away isn’t too difficult.
Suppose you’ve already heard about (and seen) the money stash that was found by the Federal Police in Salvador (Bahia), in a flat rented by one of Dilma’s and Temer’s ex-ministers….R$ 51 million, which filled 8 suitcases and 7 large boxes….
Unfortunately, Brazil will never reach the stage of social development of Scandinavia…seems we both agree that it’s the people/ culture that make the difference. In South America, it is clear that in most cases, personal ambition is what determines government policy.
Independence isn't really a serious idea, and I can't see the rest of Brazil agreeing to let the richest and most populated areas go. I don't think I could find everything I want in SP, especially all the foods I like, but that's true of any foreign country, unfortunately. You're lucky though, the traffic must be a lot less busy in SP; I reckon driving from the centre of London to the outskirts would take well over an hour in any direction, even if it's the same distance.
Sep 06th, 2017 - 11:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I hadn't seen the story, but it was on the BBC when I looked. Nice that they got some money back, but wasn't it quite stupid to keep it in a flat he was renting? And why did he have that much money in cash?
You shouldn't be so pessimistic. Maybe Brazil can never be like Scandinavia, but it could be more like the USA.
@DT
Sep 07th, 2017 - 03:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A few years back, the southern states even started campaigning for independence, but the Federal government stepped in to stop it from going any further. Nowadays, although probably present in some people's minds, it's not taken seriously as seems there is no way it would be allowed to happen.
You might not find some very specific, uncommon foods, but like NYC, being a melting pot of dozens of nationalities and cultures, you'll find 99%...if you know where to look.
The traffic in the city of São Paulo is usually quite chaotic, with heavy traffic any time of day...the city has 8 million vehicles.
Regarding Geddel Vieira Lima, the only way he and other corrupt politicians can hide bribe money is in cash...it leaves no trace...perhaps he should have hired a small jet and taken it to some Caribbean Island....better than seeing the SOB have his stash confiscated, is that he will go to prison.
It's not being pessimistic, it's just facing reality. Brazil used to be called “the country of the future”....little did they know how right they were...the future never comes. Before Brazil can take the first steps towards being a serious country, with a more honest, fairer society, the people have to let go of this rotten mentality of trying to gain illicit advantage (the 'jeitinho”) in everything ....and that may take a few generations...
Brazil may become an industrial power, a large exporter etc, and generate plenty of revenue, but if it does not filter down (in that wealth is better distributed), it will not progress socially.
There's only 2.5m cars registered in London, and the traffic is already insane. I can't imagine how bad it would be with 8m. And you can't get a lot of British foods across the channel in Europe, let alone in South America. They don't exactly enjoy world wide popularity...
Sep 07th, 2017 - 10:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If bribes have to be paid in cash how do they spend the money? It's not like you can go buy a car or a house with 100's of thousands in cash.
And at this rate there will be no one left to run the country by 2018. The President will be some nobody who wasn't important enough to be bribed, or else Moro will be elected President and thus complete his cunning plan to take over Brazil.
How do you think the government can help the wealth filter down if not with schemes like the Bolsa Familia and other social benefits? Seems like they need more skilled jobs for people but that's hard when everything is being outsourced and automated.
@DT
Sep 08th, 2017 - 06:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Bribe money is easily hidden...buy property, put it in someone else's name (ex : Lula's country home in Atibaia), leave it in the name of the Contractor (ex:Lula's 'triplex' in Guarujá...the 2nd flat on same floor in his SBC condo), have a disguised account w/ the contractors which pay the bribes (such as in Odebrecht and OAS, the 2 closest ones to Lula), receiving 'gifts' (paying for expensive reforms of a home, or flat...as done for Lula)...
And when they buy cars, they DO pay with bundles of cash, and just put it in someone else's name...you see this here, all the time.
The top 8 petistas have all been accused once again by the Attorney-General Janot.....Lula, Dilma, Palocci, Mantega, Gleisi Hoffman and her husband Paulo Bernardo, Edinho Silva, Vaccari Neto....of receiving bribes in all shapes and sizes, to the order of R$ 1,5 billion (US$ 500 million)...Palocci's testimony of 2 days ago, confirmed what many executives had told Moro, and blew the lid off Lula's weak defence that he is the most honest man ever...bla, bla, bla...And Palocci is the man who was Lula's closest confidant and helper,
for years...d'you think he doesn't know of all Lula's rotten deals ?
Wherever did you see the absurd idea that Moro has a cunning plan to take over Brazil ???
total BS, and very fake news.
“Wealth” is not spread about by giving handouts...doesn't there come a time that people need to pull their finger out and become productive ? I've always defended the BF should be used to help people over a bad patch, not give them the illusion that they never have to work again....the BF no doubt helped/ helps many in poverty, but to believe it's a long term, sustainable way to distribute wealth, is crazy. Parallel to such programmes, education is paramount, and that yes will allow people to climb the social / income ladder. Brazil is still behind the rest of the world in automation, so the idea that jobs are scarce, due to that does not hold water.
Vieira Lima should have bought some property then, rather than keeping the cash in a flat in his own name. I paid for my car in cash, but it was second hand so not really a bundle. Even so it really makes you nervous walking around with that kind of money. I'm surprised car dealers would accept that much cash when it is so likely to be gained illegally, does Brazil not have money laundering laws?
Sep 08th, 2017 - 09:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It certainly looks bad for the PT, as well as for Joesley. And my comment about Moro was just a joke, but I bet lots of people think *he* is the most honest man in Brazil now, and would vote for him as President if he stood.
““Wealth” is not spread about by giving handouts”
In developed countries it is. Gini coefficent is a measure of income inequality, the higher it is the more unequal. According to the world bank, Brazil's was 51.5% in 2014. And according to the ONS in the UK, UK Gini would be 50.0% if not for taxes and benefits, which bring it down to 36.4%. That's handouts spreading the wealth.
Giving money to those who aren't working (except pensioners etc) should ideally be temporary, until they find a job. But lots of countries give money to working people with a low income, especially families with children. The UK has child benefit, and child tax credits. The US gives a tax rebate if you qualify, and it can be bigger than the taxes you paid, so it's a benefit really... and lots of Americans who complain about welfare get it.
It's even more common to tax rich people more, and spend the money on services that benefit everyone. That's another way to spread wealth. Helping people climb the ladder is also necessary, especially when so many people are at the bottom. Sharing wealth doesn't in itself make people more productive, you need to do that too so there is something to share.
Brazil may not have much automation, but it's competing with countries that do. If they can manufacture something more cheaply, that's less sales and less jobs for Brazil.
@DT
Sep 09th, 2017 - 03:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Quite sure the R$ 51 million was just waiting to be 'laundered' into something that appeared legit...leaving part in cash for 'emergencies'.
Until recently, the law didn't even classify laundering as a (white collar) crime...Congress won't pass laws that might compromise its members past / future actions ; In fact, they tried passing laws to pardon past crimes..
Ok, tell me what good the handouts have done in Brazil - other than the 'temporary' help ? virtually no sustainable improvement can be seen. Going back to education : historically, most governing bodies Brazil have relegated it to 2nd plan...deliberately, as politicians know it's easier to manipulate ignorant people.
Well thought-out tax credits and policy that helps the less favoured, giving them a chance to “try” to improve their lot, is good, but to simply throw money at them, as if that were the final objective, doesn't work. The BF, while 'theoretically' has a few strings attached, in practice is regarded as early retirement by many. It doesn't contribute to definitive solutions. 'Giving' money to low-income people sounds nice, but the country has to be able to afford it...the BF ended up being used politically (by Lula) and it's whole purpose was defeated. You cannot compare the US & UK, with Brazil...the stages of development are so far apart, that any comparison is just a stat.
Here, the IRS taxes the hell out of salaries, and not investments...it should be the other way round...consumption should not be taxed as high as it is...this just taxes the poor at the same rate the rich are. It's easy to say how things should be, but first you've got to have the means to do it, then Congress needs to have the will to pass the necessary laws.
The lack of automation, except in many multinational industries, just adds a bit more to the infamous cost of doing business in Brazil. There's a lot that needs doing here, but Congress doesn't seem too interested.
Need space for another reply...tks.
“Ok, tell me what good the handouts have done in Brazil”
Sep 09th, 2017 - 10:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't know how much good they've done in Brazil since I don't live there, but I know I wouldn't like to see the UK move towards Brazilian levels of inequality, even with its much higher average income. Sure the UK is richer, but the benefits are a lot higher too. No one wants to get rid of the child benefit, for example, and that is essentially a handout for families with children. Obviously poorer countries can't spend as much, but it doesn't mean they're best spending nothing.
The BF may not be the optimum way to spread wealth, but it does do so and it doesn't cost much; pensions are by far the biggest social expense. If it's used to 'buy' votes that's a problem, on the other hand there doesn't seem to be as much scope for kickbacks as with other public spending.
Reforming taxes would surely help as well, possibly even more so, but it's not as 'visible' a change to those you want to benefit, which might be why it's less popular. Also you can't attach strings to tax cuts as easily.
And no one could argue education doesn't help with poverty, especially basic education. It does seem suspicious that none of the parties have prioritised it...
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!