MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, March 26th 2019 - 02:20 UTC

Argentina pledges US$ 500 million on Tuesday to stabilize the forex market

Tuesday, August 14th 2018 - 06:50 UTC
Full article 21 comments

Argentina's peso hit an all-time low on Monday as Latin American currencies sank amid a broader sell-off in emerging markets that have been rattled by the Turkish lira's plunge. Read full article


Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Enrique Massot

    Lebacs are out, Leliqs and LETES are in. The financial has long taken over any conversation about the real economy.

    President Macri has provided support to the agro-food industry, to energy providers, public works and the financial sector--sectors in which Macri, his family and close friends have significant interests.

    The rest of the economic sectors have been left coping with punishing interest rates, reduced consumption and indiscriminate imports.

    Nobody out of Argentina is going to say a word until catastrophe hits. Why? Because as country is being bled to death it is providing juicy profits to international operators.

    The current process shows the dilemma of countries in which the wealthy and the powerful secure their assets abroad and as a result don't need to worry about an eventual crisis at home.

    Aug 14th, 2018 - 06:53 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • bushpilot

    I assume you are speaking of the wealthy and powerful CFK and her overseas assets, is that right?

    “don't need to worry about an eventual crisis at home.”

    Kind of like living in Canada and waxing praise on CFK and Kirchnerism because you didn't have to suffer through the economic shit storm her team caused. The one that enabled your Macri to eke out an election win.

    And also like how you are able to bang on and on about how important socialism and command economics are in Latin America because you don't live there and are completely insulated from their consequences.

    Aug 15th, 2018 - 01:22 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Enrique Massot


    Either you are utterly misinformed by such trustworthy sources as Clarin and La Nacion, or you are but a troll, being paid to spread biased rumours on opinion forums.

    “ are speaking of the wealthy and powerful CFK and her overseas assets...”

    If you were in possession of even the most basic information you would know that no CFK overseas assets were ever found -- even after a lot of digging. However, searches for CFK's “wealth and assets” did uncover substantial assets belonging to president Macri and other government officials.

    Even warrior journalist Jorge Lanata, who broadcast false information about a supposedly CFK offshore account at the Seychelles Islands, eventually had to stop talking about it.

    So the Panama Papers, and then the Paradise Papers which uncover a lot of information about Macri yielded nothing - comprende? Nada about CFK.

    In any event, if you tell me you don't like CKF that is your right. Another thing is to spread falsehoods about her...or anybody else for that matter and you know that.

    So, if you happen to know something about CFK's “overseas assets,” by all means, go ahead and let MP readers know.

    We are all ears, pilot.

    Aug 16th, 2018 - 03:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • bushpilot

    Son Maximo and her other corrupt associates keep her overseas accounts for her. Nope, no evidence for that. I believe it and I believe it is not false.

    No one has to stop talking about CFK's visit to the Seychelles, that is not a falsehood.

    If that was Macri that stopped off at the Seychelles, for a “fuel stop”, I know you would believe he had an offshore account there and you would post about it.

    If Lazaro Baez diverted public funds to tax havens, that is the same as CFK doing it. We aren't in court EM. And Baez is in jail now isn't he?

    You have no such evidentiary requirement for your own anti-Macri ramblings.

    One of these MP posts described you like this,

    You'll condemn neo-liberal governments on little evidence but require all the facts when socialists are accused.

    Further, when evidence in detail is supplied, you then reply, “I don't debate in those terms”.

    JB gives you his evidence on Lula's illegal apartment, asks you to respond, and, you wouldn't.

    DT then further prompts you to respond to JB's evidence and your reply:

    EM: “No, I don't debate in JB's terms”

    DT: “What, you don't debate in terms of the evidence?”

    EM: “Most MP postings express readers' opinion on MP stories. As for myself, I have limited time and as a result I will mostly post my opinion on matters published here or on opinions expressed by other readers.”

    Oh great! You just express “opinions”. But everyone else needs to back up their opinions with evidence or else they aren't opinions, they are “falsehoods”.

    Aug 16th, 2018 - 07:56 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Zaphod Beeblebrox


    “You have no such evidentiary requirement for your own anti-Macri ramblings.”

    Indeed. Reekie will often post a definitive statement along the lines of “Macri is the ONLY...” or “Macri CANNOT...” etc. which are easily proved incorrect, but when you do that he has no effective rebuttal. It is quite fun to point out his evidently incorrect statements. Unfortunately, his track record of doing this means that his occasional good point gets missed.

    BTW, you can't post multiple links in MP, you'll just get the first one multiple times. So maybe post one in the reply to this?

    Aug 17th, 2018 - 05:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Enrique Massot


    OK. You guess CFK is corrupt, got rich and has overseas assets - but you can't back that claim up.

    “Nope, no evidence for that. I believe it and I believe it is not false.”

    Fair enough. Then, to avoid further confusion, just add “I believe” before making unproven statements. Nobody can call you out for your beliefs.

    “No one has to stop talking about CFK's visit to the Seychelles...”

    Sure. Be my guest.

    “If Lazaro Baez diverted public funds to tax havens, that is the same as CFK doing it.”

    I thought Lazaro Baez was caught red-handed with bags containing USD $9 million. Tax havens? First time I heard. Double check, pilot!

    Aug 18th, 2018 - 07:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    “President Macri has provided support to the agro-food industry, to energy providers, public works and the financial sector--sectors in which Macri, his family and close friends have significant interests”.

    Well, well, well, so I suppose your solution would be that Macri should NOT help “agro-food industry, energy providers, public works or the financial sector”, despite the importance they represent to the Argentine economy.....just because someone he knows has invested in them.....the fact that Macri, or his friends 'might' or do have 'interests' in such sectors, is not a surprise, after all, which savvy businessmen don't invest in those important sectors ?
    With you, looks like no politician except Peron and the K's ever did the right thing...a bit of a 'catch 22' situation for all the others....If they do something , 'why did they do it' ?....and if they don't, 'why didn't they' ?

    But am still waiting for your invaluable insight regarding Lázarogate and the K notebooks...
    as YOU must be “in possession of even the most basic information” on those sensitive matters, and we are struggling to know what happened...

    Aug 18th, 2018 - 10:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Enrique Massot


    I notice you are refraining from commenting below current stories on Lula.

    Anyway. You wouldn't want to be an Argentine resident and experience the consequences of Macri's support for the agri-food industry: such support has deprived the state of significant income, inflating the chronic fiscal deficit.

    Energy providers: A few friends of Macri's have benefited from outrageous increases in the price of energy chastising equally residents and the domestic productive sector.

    The financial sector: Thousand of millions in commissions earned selling bonds...public works companies doing business that will provide material for investigation once the judicial power returns to do its job...

    Now the Lazarogate and the “K notebooks.” You are wrong calling them so. They are photocopies of notebooks and they are not “K.” Sorry to let you know that once the media circus is over and the tribunals get to seriously work on the evidence, the Macri government will be walking on the tightrope in order to protect construction companies that used to be property of the Macri clan or close friends.

    When the dust settles, it'll be clear that public works have been cartelized since at least the 1970s. The Kirchnerist governments may not be an exception, and as a result former officials may be found responsible - as it should be. Now, the Macri government has said it will leave off the hook the (bribing) companies, which is a bit strange.

    Hey, as Shakespeare wrote, “There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio...”

    Aug 19th, 2018 - 06:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    “notice you're refraining frm commenting below current stories on Lula”.....right, some of them....because they're all about the same thing, 'n I will end up writing much of what I've already written 'n will keep on hearing the same excuse me if I am getting a bit tired of Lula and his refusal to accept consequences..

    Regarding yr long awaited replies, for which I thank you, all I have to say is, regarding :
    “Agribusiness” : If not mistaken - correct me if I'm wrong - under CFK, the cattle farmers went through hell with her - she tried to force them to sell beef internally at prices lower than those of the foreign backfired... and a few other things as well....and, the agribusiness, being one of Argentina's backbones, wouldn't it be rational to invest to lift it up again ? or should it be allowed to rot, because some of Macri's friends have benefited ? I never checked it out, but didn't Nestor K and CFK benefit from shady deals in the real-estate market, going back 20 years (I think) ? and through which 100s lost their homes ?

    Re energy, were prices artificially low (subsidized by the State), in order to keep people happy ? and to keep CFK's popularity high ?, similar to what Dilma did with the price of fuel here, which virtually broke PB - if so, only fair now to increase them, regardless if Macri's friends benefited. I'm sure many other people who aren't his friends, also benefited.

    Financial sector...selling bonds (only) for commissions doesn't sound right...but presume it's being investigated. So Lula isn't the only crook..

    Re Lazaro Baez, seems there are a lot of unanswered questions. Re the K notebooks, which apparently no longer are (?), and you say are not 'K', am I to presume CFK never took advantage of her position, and that she's as innocent as a new-born baby ? But ok, it doesnt really interest me as I don't live in Argentina.
    When the dust settles, I too hope that Macri, if found guilty, goes to jail.

    Aug 19th, 2018 - 11:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Enrique Massot


    The notebooks are not 'K' because they involve much more than the 'Ks.'

    The related judicial action could be the start of widespread investigation on Argentina's cartelization of public works in the last four decades. That would a great opportunity. If, on the other hand, the whole thing is aimed to hurt CFK electoral chances, then nobody wins but her opponents. If she is proven guilty, then she should pay too as anybody else. If the judges do their job, she should be in good company - you named him in your last line and good for you.

    Aug 20th, 2018 - 12:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Yes, utilities were subsidised under CFK, and it had become unsustainable. Macri reduced tariffs to boost agri-exports, but the drought stopped them growing/recovering. He was unlucky, but it shows how risky it is to base your economy on agriculture.

    RE your reply on “Brazil and Argentina markets”:
    I meant you seem to be trying to excuse the military government, eg saying they weren't as bad as those in Argentina and Chile, which is true but it's like a thief saying they shouldn't be arrested because there are murderers out there. And I'm not convinced preventing communism was the only reason the military took control (and kept it for such a long time). They also blocked more moderate reforms that could've helped the poor, and were able to run the country the way they wanted, for the benefit of people like them (and incidentally the benefit of US companies). Under the guise of suppressing communism, they were able to remove anyone who disagreed with them over policy or objected to the methods they were using.

    I know the protest was in Rio, but I thought you might have seen it in the papers since it was a big one. Were there none in SP? I know it's a richer and more conservative part of the country but surely there were a few?

    “probably based on a lot of left-wing literature on the subject”

    Sources extolling the virtues of the dictatorship are kind of thin on the ground. Even if they praise some aspects like the 'Brazilian miracle', most historians are going to condemn the suppression of rights, and the torture and murders.

    “after more experience you'll probably mold your views closer to the inevitable reality, and not so much on idealism.”

    If the experience required is living under a dictatorship, or with rampant crime, then I certainly hope not. What is it I said that you think is so idealistic? And hey, Enrique has a lot more experience than me, do you think he's also more cynical?

    Aug 20th, 2018 - 01:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    “The notebooks are not 'K' because they involve much more than the 'Ks.' ”

    OK, believe that ; so CFK isn't the only rotten apple...but to automatically presume that “the whole thing is aimed to hurt CFK electoral chances etc...” is being a bit narrow-minded.....
    If these 'notes', whether exclusive to the 'K' era or not, name CFK and those before her, and for similar malpractises, she should not be singled out as a victim while the accusations stick to others ; Even if she 'might' have done some good during her 8 years, it is hardly justification to wipe her slate clean.

    Agree, Macri was unlucky, and reliance on any single sector is risky.

    That the Brazilian military wasn't as bad as our neighbour's were, is fact, but I'm not trying to excuse them - 'cause of that, or anything else....I analyze their actions (good & bad) only within Brazil's context...even because I don't know how it was under Argentina's & Chile's militaries...I do remember however, when visting, my uncles would complain like hell.
    If the military in Brazil had ambitions beyond preventing (what they saw as) a communist threat, why didn't they hang on to power - which they could have, very easily, why didn't they place generals & colonels in every sector of govt, why didn't they shut down Congress and eliminate political parties ? & just for starters ; you can't just take a few isolated facts 'n generalize, ignoring the fact they handed back power to the civilians peacefully. They were different, but I didn't “not-attack-them” because of that, but because, AFAI was concerned, back then, they were the lesser of two evils..

    “Sources extolling the virtues of the dictatorship are kind of thin on the ground.”....sure, much like the noise made by minorities is far louder than that of the silent majority.

    “Life”-experience generally speaking, not dictatorships/crime
    Idealistic ? finding it hard to accept Brazil's reality (politics, crime)...
    EM cynical ? not at all, just slightly biased.

    Aug 20th, 2018 - 07:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    “why didn't they shut down Congress and eliminate political parties?”

    According to Wikipedia, they eliminated all but two political parties, one backed by the government and the other an opposition purged of any real dissent. (Presumably kept around for appearance's sake.) And after AI5 was passed, Congress was closed for the remainder of Costa e Silva's term, as well as all state legislatures except São Paulo's.

    As for why they didn't hang on to power; they did for 20 years, despite the first military President intending to give power back to the civilians after one term. And again according to Wikipedia, there were factions in the military, and when the more liberal faction gained control, they gradually relaxed the laws and began the movement back towards democracy. Popular dissatisfaction with the government, with protests, did the rest.

    And you might want to remember that after all the excesses of communism, nearly every country in Eastern Europe returned to democracy peacefully. Yet I don't think those governments ever planned to hand over power.

    “much like the noise made by minorities is far louder than that of the silent majority.”

    Or perhaps, once the majority were no longer silenced by the junta, they didn't have much good to say about it.

    ““Life”-experience generally speaking, not dictatorships/crime”
    ”finding it hard to accept Brazil's reality (politics, crime)”

    That's kinda my point, though. I doubt I'll change my views much just from experience, because I'm not likely to experience anything like that. Experiencing more of the same isn't going to do it. Were you idealistic when you were young?

    Re EM, I thought he made an interesting comparison, as someone older who grew up in Latin America and has lived in several countries - I was wondering today whether he's more or less idealistic than me. If he comes back he can give his own opinion. ;)

    Aug 20th, 2018 - 09:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    B4 '64, there were 3 main parties (PTB/PSD/UDN) 'n 5 minor ones, some with strong leftist influence, so on the one hand, being banned was significant, but on the other, didn't make much difference as the politicians (who weren't exiled) were rearranged into the two new parties...'n considering the reason behind the coup it's only natural the military were on the alert for any 'strange activity'...Congress, with its two parties, situation & opposition, kept on deciding everyday matters....the military was more concerned with nat'l security 'n trying to create a country where the leftist appeal wouldn't gain ground. Today we have 32 parties, which makes governing difficult, unless willing to “negotiate” benefits with Congress, regarding matters that have little to do with the people. The fact they held power for 20 years was merely circumstancial, I don't believe they took it with that intention. Fact remains, it they 'had wanted to', they'd still be in power.
    “...the excesses of communism...” far worse than Brazil's military...
    “Yet I don't think those governments ever planned to hand over power.” right you was only Ronald Reagan's insistence with a malleable Gorbachev that eventually made USSR's communism crumble...

    “...perhaps, once the majority were no longer silenced by the junta,...” not sure if I understood that, but seems that no matter what I say abt the military, you will always part from the principle they did no good whatsoever...

    Your basic views probably won't change, as they'll always reflect the reality you were brought up in, but experience will open your eyes to the fact that other realities DO exist, no matter how hard it might be to accept them. But that will only happen IF you experience them. When I was young, I had some rather impractical ideas about how the world could be be a better place, but they soon wore off. I've travelled quite extensively, lived in 3 different countries, so it's opened my eyes quite a bit.

    Aug 21st, 2018 - 05:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Not much difference, if you think it's the people who matter and not the policies. But that's wrong. You can happily keep the same people, as long as you can 'persuade' them to support your ideas. It's true that what politicians call themselves isn't important, but the laws they vote for are, and the military got rid of all serious opposition. Anyone who stepped out of line knew they could end up exiled too. And when even that wasn't enough control, they closed Congress.

    I think you are right that they didn't intend to keep power originally, but the more hardline group in the military gained control and insisted on stricter measures, which just provoked even more resistance, prolonging the fight. Anyway, the fact they gave up power peacefully in the end doesn't prove their good intentions, because the communists did the same.

    Re the 'silent majority', it's very easy to say they agree with you, (and very easy to believe it, because people you know generally do think similarly), but no way to know if it's true. And during the dictatorship it would look like most people agreed because free speech was banned.

    But, I daresay the junta did do some good. After all, even the communists in Cuba have done some; they increased literacy to 100% and extended medical care to everyone.

    “When I was young, I had some rather impractical ideas about how the world could be be a better place”

    Oh? Do tell.

    Aug 21st, 2018 - 07:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    That's what I'm implying by 'not much difference' ....the people may have been rearranged but their ideas, or their convictions didn't change. The military got rid of, or tried to curb extreme leftist views....that's what the whole thing was about. The military were not really dictating business rules, or the path of the economy...they let civilians look after that, as obviously the economy could not stop while they were doing 'their' job.

    As to the military hardliners provoking more resistance , and this in turn causing them to stay on, is a possibility, and if so, would say it was because they still saw a lingering leftist threat in the air... if they handed things back to the civilians, lock, stock and barrel.
    Most people don't take decisions for nothing, and it was likely that the course of events went determining their actions. Look I can't prove the military's intentions to you, but for what it's worth, communism would've been worse, AFAIC. The choice was never put to the vote, but if it had been, I still would have gone with the would be one or the other, no intermediate option.
    To the extent that people became well-behaved 'sheep' under the military, I don't know, but within MY expectations, nothing changed. It's not a matter of the majority agreeing with ME, but more like me fitting in with ideas of the majority. If you define 'free-speech' back then, as not openly criticizing the military, then yes, it was banned....and I repeat, it did not affect me one ambition was to get a degree, earn good money, and take advantage of what it can offer...the military, in no way, became an obstacle.

    My impracticable ideas were about thinking that (not-so-good) things were easy to change...obviously I was out of touch with time you come to realize you can't change things, unless you dedicate yourself to a specific (selfless) cause, which wasn't my case.

    Aug 21st, 2018 - 07:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    “the people may have been rearranged but their ideas, or their convictions didn't change”

    I assume not, but the laws they passed did. Again according to Wikipedia, Jango passed reforms including to education (program to combat adult illiteracy and banning private schools), tax (control of any transfer of profits by multinational companies with headquarters abroad; the profit should be reinvested in Brazil. The income tax would be proportional to personal profit.), voting rights and land ownership. How many of those survived the start of the dictatorship?

    What does it matter if you have the same people, if they are making very different decisions? And some of Jango's ideas may be extreme, but educating illiterate people isn't, and neither is a proportional income tax. That is the sort of thing I mean when i said the junta also blocked more moderate reforms.

    “the military, in no way, became an obstacle”

    That's okay for you, but other people had different ambitions, or, less chances in life because they were poor, and the government did nothing to help them. If back in 1964 I could have shown you in a crystal ball that Brazil would not become communist under Goulart, would you still have preferred the military government so his rather radical reforms?

    As for the majority, when Janio resigned and Jango became president, Congress changed the rules to remove most of his power. In 1963 they held a constitutional referendum to confirm this, and voters refused, so Jango assumed full powers. I guess y
    ou would have been too young to vote in it, and anyway not a citizen yet. But it implies that at that time, the majority supported Jango.

    ”thinking that (not-so-good) things were easy to change”

    I think all teenagers believe that. ;) What kind of things? Crime? Poverty?

    Aug 21st, 2018 - 11:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    Ok, let's take a different approach ...what d’you think the communists might‘ve done, had the military not intervened ? passed far more restrictive laws ? perhaps like in the USSR ? (no personal freedom etc)...ever thought of that ? No one asked what we wanted, so you were either relieved at the outcome (as could’ve been worse), or pissed-off…

    Not sure what Jango did to combat adult illiteracy, nor did I hear of banning private schools, but the main anti-illiteracy program - MOBRAL- started ’68, by the military. Try googleing “Governo João Goulart - Mundo Educação” and translate it.

    Vaguely remember the attempt to restrict profit remittance by multinationals, but don’t think it worked.
    In ’64 my father bought a bit of land, then more in following years ; after a few bureaucratic obstacles, as he was a foreigner, it was eventually legalized.

    If Jango’s ideas on education were viable I don’t know, but after Janio Q resigned in 1961, the political struggle in Brazil, between left ‘n right became more accentuated ‘n was an extremely turbulent period.
    ME :“the military, in no way, became an obstacle” …YOU :That's okay for you, but other people had different ambitions,or..”…different ambitions ? OK, perhaps wanting to live under a communist regime ? and what abt those who didn’t ? Considering that no govt has ever really earnestly attempted to solve Brazil’s basic problems – lack of infrastructure, education, health services, criminality etc – what’s your point ? that Jango was a savior ?
    “If back in 1964 I could have shown you in a crystal ball…” well, ‘that’ would have been nice…but no one saw the possibility of a 3rd option.

    The Constitutional referendum in ’63 was a vote to carry on with the ‘parliamentary’ system - with obvious reduction in the president’s power, imposed in ’61, to allow Jango to take over, but did not function well - or to return to presidentialism…so it was abt the system, not Jango.

    As a teenager : need more space..tks.

    Aug 22nd, 2018 - 07:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    What might the communists have done? Supposing they really did take over, which - with the benefit of hindsight - I don't think is very likely, then I guess something similar to Cuba, or to Venezuela. It would probably be worse than the military government, at least in some ways.

    “Vaguely remember the attempt to restrict profit remittance by multinationals, but don’t think it worked.”

    Probably the army cancelled it even before it could be implemented, or soon afterwards, as a quid pro quo for US support. And the same with the educational reforms, but not for the same reason. It's ever so hard to find anything more detailed in English. How successful was MOBRAL? Obviously not fully since there is still a high percentage of illiteracy among the older people in Brazil.

    “different ambitions”

    I'm not talking about communism, but people wanting to go into politics, or dedicate themselves to some cause to make Brazil a better place. Or go into journalism or the arts where freedom of expression is important. Or education in certain subjects for the same reason (what was your degree in, by the way? I can't remember if you told me already.) Or just ordinary workers who wanted a pay rise, but were forbidden to go on strike.

    “no one saw the possibility of a 3rd option.”

    Maybe not, but you didn't answer the question. Even if he never brought in communism, you probably would have objected to some of Goulart's reforms, and they may even have been bad for you as a - back then - foreigner living in Brazil.

    “it was abt the system, not Jango”

    The article you had me google said that the system was changed in order to limit Jango's power, so how was the vote not about him? If the people had agreed with the generals they would have voted to keep him limited, no?

    Aug 22nd, 2018 - 08:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    “I guess something similar to Cuba, or VZ”….To Cuba ‘today’, or Cuba in 60s ? Two very different realities. And VZ isn’t communist, just has a stupid dictator who's lost.

    Foreign capital always played a very significant role in our economy, specially in the 1900s, 'n the law on remittance of profits, passed in 62, was too restrictive, had an enormously negative effect, so in 64 the govt proposed modifications, less restrictive, which were approved by a narrow margin in Congress, and is MOL the basis of what occurs today.

    Mobral was only relatively successful, as I think it fizzled out after 10 years, being substituted by other programs.

    “Maybe not, but you didn't answer the question”; presuming he wouldn’t have transformed Bzl into a communist country, I still don’t know what ‘administrative’ reforms Jango might have passed…so what can I say abt a hypothetical 3rd option ? a lot of “ifs ‘n ands” here…but as a foreigner, I couldn’t vote, nor become president…big deal.

    Unfortunately, the parliamentary system, completely unknown to the people (and little understood), and highly rejected by politicians (as it reduced their power, defined responsibilities, was more transparent), didn’t work…so after 2 yrs the people simply voted to go back to what they knew. They had no idea what was at stake…and remember, Jango was not the ‘elected’ president (same as Temer).
    Since then, we’ve had other congressional debates on whether to change the system, all defeated. The presidential system puts too much power in the hands of one man, and makes it difficult to destitute him/her without nat’l trauma.

    If anyone’s ‘ambition’ was to truly serve the country and its people, don’t see why the military would’ve objected ; they even increased the number of seats in Congress to allow the N & NE States more representativeness.

    After Economics, did another year to get a CPA degree (a bit boring), then later took a post-graduate course, equivalent to today's MBA.

    Aug 23rd, 2018 - 09:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    “To Cuba ‘today’, or Cuba in 60s ?”

    I don't know, it's all speculation anyway. VZ isn't communist, but it's arguably socialist, so if we imagine Jango refused to ally with the USSR but did follow radical policies... but then, Maduro is stupid as well as socialist, and the oil allowed them to ignore the problems until they became nearly insurmountable. That wouldn't be the case for Brazil, so who knows.

    “the law on remittance of profits, passed in 62, was too restrictive, had an enormously negative effect”

    So the law did go into effect. Did you find a site that talks about it? If so can you link me? I didn't have much luck with my googling.

    “as a foreigner, I couldn’t vote, nor become president”

    I had forgotten that when you were a student you couldn't even vote, that probably does make you less interested in politics; obviously it would still affect you, but not much point informing yourself about the various candidates if you couldn't vote for them.

    And I don't get why all these countries in the Americas won't let immigrants be president. Someone who moved to America aged one, grew up there and spent their whole life there would be barred, while eg Boris Johnson, if he'd moved to the US 15 years ago, would be eligible. Seems silly to me.

    Re the parliamentary system, in Brazil it seems to have been mostly used to reduce the power of the 'people' and control who was elected. Hardly surprising that it's unpopular there now.

    “don’t see why the military would’ve objected”

    Really? First because they were trying to crush communism, or anything that looked vaguely like it such as reforms to help the poor, and secondly because they wanted to stay in power, so the opposition could not be allowed to become too strong. Aren't the N & NE states the ones where you said oligarchs buy support in elections and there are dynasties with a stranglehold on power? Not sure that really improves representation.

    CPA = accountancy? Were all those degrees free?

    Aug 23rd, 2018 - 10:54 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!