The recession in Brazil - lessons to be learned?

Originally posted by eljefejesus
How can anyone possibly consider you a good debater??

My post laid out a whole slew of historically based points.

And you merely tried to deliver a personal slight by way of your response.

It is hardly my debating skills and/or knowledge that appear lacking.

Originally posted by FMF
Stuck for an answer are you?

My post laid out a whole slew of historically based points.

And you merely tried to deliver a personal slight by way of a response.

It is your debating skills and/or knowledge that appears lacking in this instance.

Historically based points? That's not even a real phrase!

You were begging the question about social democracy being somehow an important factor.

You focus like some other posters on just the idea of corruption as the answer to all questions and then you try to associate it without basis with the US without providing a basis of how this is associated with capitalism moreso than in the social democratic model you advocate.

Completely childish and unsophisticated statements... bad debater FMF, real bad.

Originally posted by eljefejesus
You focus like some other posters on just the idea of corruption as the answer to all questions and then you try to associate it without basis with the US without providing a basis of how this is associated with capitalism moreso than in the social democratic model you advocate.

Look, if you're not prepared to read and digest my posts - and other posts by people you don't agree with, at least read some history about the region and its relationship with the U.S.

You don't rate social democracy. We get it. But you seem to get strangely het up when your are contradicted. You may think this makes you seem formidable. Others would probably just catagorize you with the likes of generalissimo, whodey and utherpendragon. Maybe you're content with that. I don't really care.

Originally posted by FMF
Look, if you're not prepared to read and digest my posts - and other posts by people you don't agree with, at least read some history about the region and its relationship with the U.S.

You don't rate social democracy. We get it. But you seem to get strangely het up when your are contradicted. You may think this makes you seem formidable. Others would probabl ...[text shortened]... eralissimo, whodey and utherpendragon. Maybe you're content with that. I don't really care.

You know what, I did get annoyed and worked up, I just don't think your points are that good, but I'll just forget about it. Nothing personal, but I found your points to be weakly made. However, you are entitled to your opinion and perspectives and I should cut back on the mocking. I do want to point out that you are the one that needs to learn more about the region. If you think you know more about latin america than I do, you're another sandwich short of a picnic basket.

Originally posted by eljefejesus
I do want to point out that you are the one that needs to learn more about the region. If you think you know more about latin america than I do, you're another sandwich short of a picnic basket.

You remind me of Marxist ideologues who downplay the atrocities that lay at the very heart of the communist project in the U.S.S.R.'s sphere of influence. Moderate, thinking people nowadays, rightly, attribute these terrible tragic things to the realities of the economic system and the ideology.

Then there are those who downplay the atrocities that lay at the very heart of the "capitalist" project in the U.S.'s sphere of influence during pretty much the same era, especially in Latin America. These deniers are quite often Latin Americans themselves, as you apparently are, so the often heard but rather lame "I know more about it than you do" taunt comes up short when we are dealing with people cramming the convenient bits of what they know into their ideological pigeon holes.

Moderate, thinking people nowadays, rightly, attribute the terrible tragic things that happened in Latin America to the realities of the economic system and the ideology that the U.S. brand of "capitalism" foisted upon the region.

You are so preoccupied with mocking people with whom you disagree that you end up trying to bat away what they say with retorts that make you look like you don't understand the points you're batting away.

I never "equated capitalism with dictatorship" and yet that was your miss-the-point dismissive comment. If you'd read what I said more carefully, then you'd realize that I was talking about U.S. "capitalism" working hand in hand with dictatorship in Latin America. That was the reality. That helps us define U.S. "capitalism" historically. And it serves as a cautionary tale about what "capitalism" still is, to a degree, in certain parts of the world, and which "capitalism" will be again, perhaps, should the going get really tough.

Swatting the realities away makes you a denier, regardless of your accumulation of information or my accumulation of information. And it means you have somethong uncomfortable in common with communist apologists. It's like the Cold War never ended for you. Surely now people on both sides of that divide can talk honestly and openly about what happened?

Seemingly not, in your case, it's more about picnic baskets being short of a sandwich, about dissenters being completely childish, hilarious, being "ignorant of all ideologies", having "stinking parents", with you even starting petulant threads to try to air your compulsion to mock.

Perhaps your tendecy to get annoyed and worked up is a sub-conscious indication that constantly denying what happened in the past so that you can be so toothpaste commercially about your chosen ideology of the present, eats away at your soul as it bides its time before hooking up with the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of innocent Latin American souls who were slaughtered in order to make their continent "safe" for U.S. "capitalism".

Originally posted by FMF
Why don't you debate? Why don't you write a real post? Why don't you present an argument or a point of view?

Because I don't know what you mean by "functioning".

Do you think the US (for example) is "failed"?

Originally posted by no1marauder
generalissmo: The economy performed less badly than expected in the first quarter: GDP shrank by only 0.8% compared with the last three months of 2008.

Yes, an economy not shrinking as badly as expected is an economic miracle.

still, it is an improvement.

A decade ago, Brazil would have been seriously damaged by a recessesion such as today's.

Originally posted by generalissimo
Because I don't know what you mean by "functioning".

Do you think the US (for example) is "failed"?

Merely cutting and pasting from a web site and then asking little 6 or 7 word questions of people who then discuss the article, is not debating or discussing anything for real.

Originally posted by FMF
Merely cutting and pasting from a web site and then asking little 6 or 7 word questions of people who then discuss the article, is not debating or discussing anything for real.

Avoiding questions by attacking me personally isn't debating either.

Is this about the length of my post? grow up!

Originally posted by generalissimo
Avoiding questions by attacking me personally isn't debating either.

What do have to say about the things posted on this thread so far?

Your silly little questions suggest someone who sees himself as a "very active debater" and who therefore just posts for posting sake.

Do you think the decline of National Security States and military "strongmen" and the growth of social democracy in Latin America has been good. What do you think about U.S. "capitalism's" treatment of Latin America from the Monroe Doctrine onwards?

Just engage. Rather than this silly yapping around with short little questions that express no opinion and do not further the debate one iota.

Originally posted by FMF
What do have to say about the things posted on this thread so far?

Your silly little questions suggest someone who sees himself as a "very active debater" and who therefore just posts for posting sake.

Do you think the decline of National Security States and military "strongmen" and the growth of social democracy in Latin America has been good. What do yo ...[text shortened]... th short little questions that express no opinion and do not further the debate one iota.

Answer my questions.

Your silly little questions suggest someone who sees himself as a "very active debater" and who therefore just posts for posting sake.

Ok FMF, you're obviously the greatest debater this site has ever seen.

Do you think the decline of National Security States and military "strongmen" and the growth of social democracy in Latin America has been good.

yes ,obviously.
The military regime in Brazil was necessary at a point, but it lasted for too long. Their policies of blind nationalism didn't work, for example, the law that prevented foreign ownership of brazilian media companies. There were many other laws created at the time, which I was opposed to, like the law that allowed censorship, which by the way was only changed very recently. The irony was that the dictatorship eventually did almost the same thing the communists would have done, create a country where freedom was very limited.

What do you think about U.S. "capitalism's" treatment of Latin America from the Monroe Doctrine onwards?

I think the moroe doctrine had its negatives and positives.
I believe that the goal of preventing European governments from interfering with states in the Americas was beneficial.
However, this also encouraged imperialism, like what happened in Cuba and Mexico.
Im glad Latin America is more independent from the US nowadays, but I don't endorse anti-americanism as used by caudillos like Chavez in order to have a scapegoat.

Originally posted by generalissimo
The military regime in Brazil was necessary at a point, but it lasted for too long. Their policies of blind nationalism didn't work, for example, the law that prevented foreign ownership of brazilian media companies. There were many other laws created at the time, which I was opposed to, like the law that allowed censorship, which by the way was only c ...[text shortened]... n't endorse anti-americanism as used by caudillos like Chavez in order to have a scapegoat.

Thanks. It wasn't so hard now, was it?

Your questions are of no consequence to me or to my interest in this topic.

Originally posted by FMF
Thanks. It wasn't so hard now, was it?

Your questions are of no consequence to me or to my interest in this topic.

so you're not going to answer my questions?

c'mon FMF, don't run away.

Originally posted by generalissimo
so you're not going to answer my questions?

c'mon FMF, don't run away.

Ask an interesting or intelligent question and I will. But these "very active debater" dribble of questions for seeming-to-be-active's sake, no. I will "run away" from that stuff.

As far as I am concerned every democracy in the world mixes "collectivism" with its adherence to market mechanisms. A massive social security programme, Medicare, Medicaid, huge provision of public education, massive subsides to wall street and all the rest, corporate welfare, hefty bureaucracy, regulations, discreet protectionism and defence of domestic industries, hugely subsidized agriculture, the 'welfare state for arms producers' Pentagon budget etc. etc. in the U.S. makes it a form of social democracy, and for all intents and purposes rather much of a muchness with European social democracies -- they all settle on their own democracy-monitored compromises and synergy between "socialism" and "capitalism".

Is the U.S. the "best example" of "capitalism" in the world now? Yes, you say? OK, I'll defer. OK then, it means we have a definition of functioning "capitalism", here it is: A massive social security programme, Medicare, Medicaid, huge provision of public education, massive subsides to wall street and all the rest, corporate welfare, hefty bureaucracy, regulations, discreet protectionism and defence of domestic industries, hugely subsidized agriculture, the 'welfare state for arms producers' Pentagon budget etc. etc. plus adherence to market mechanisms in business and trade.

So, it turns out that the best "functioning" example of "capitalism" in the world is, in actual fact, just another social democracy variant.

eljefejesus talks about "capitalism" like a sports fan. Remember how he hurls the Communist Manifesto at social democrats? Well it turns out his "best example" of a "functioning capitalist system" is the U.S. All well and good. But it is pretty much just a social democracy of a more hardnose variety. So all eljefejesus' bluster and mockery is merely a kind of sports fan thing. He ignores what doesn't fit. He wants to ignore the reality of "U.S. "capitalism" in Latin America in the 20thC )

I don't know why you have me explain all this to you. If you read my posts with respect, it's all there anyway.

Originally posted by FMF
Ask an interesting or intelligent question and I will. But these "very active debater" dribble of questions for seeming-to-be-active's sake, no. I will "run away" from that stuff.

As far as I am concerned every democracy in the world mixes "collectivism" with its adherence to market mechanisms. A massive social security programme, Medicare, Medicaid, huge pr ...[text shortened]... If you read my posts with respect, it's all there anyway.

Ask an interesting or intelligent question and I will. But these "very active debater" dribble of questions for seeming-to-be-active's sake, no. I will "run away" from that stuff.

So you're going to be selective about questions because you can't answer some of them.

As far as I am concerned every democracy in the world mixes "collectivism" with its adherence to market mechanisms.
A massive social security programme, Medicare, Medicaid, huge provision of public education, massive subsides to wall street and all the rest, corporate welfare, hefty bureaucracy, regulations, discreet protectionism and defence of domestic industries, hugely subsidized agriculture, the 'welfare state for arms producers' Pentagon budget etc. etc. in the U.S. makes it a form of social democracy, and for all intents and purposes rather much of a muchness with European social democracies -- they all settle on their own democracy-monitored compromises and synergy between "socialism" and "capitalism".

yes, the government sets the rules, and should have owndership of some facilities in order to care for those who cannot afford to go private. However, it would be a generalisation to label it all as "synergy between socialism and capitalism", government interference varies from country to country, some (like the US) have less interference than the UK (for example), which makes some more capitalist than others, the majority of countries could be described as a functioning capitalist country.

So, it turns out that the best "functioning" example of "capitalism" in the world is, in actual fact, just another social democracy variant.

Just because the US shares some of the features found in socialist countries doesn't mean the US is just another social democracy variant (or pretty much the same as european countries like sweden), the differences are huge between the US and N.Korea for example.

eljefejesus talks about "capitalism" like a sports fan. Remember how he hurls the Communist Manifesto at social democrats? Well it turns out his "best example" of a "functioning capitalist system" is the U.S.

the fact that eljefejesus is passionate about capitalism doesn't mean he is not thinking about the changes in the system (more government intervention), the US could still be considered an example of a functioning capitalist system, because the degree of intervention is still small if compared to other countries in europe or asia.