Leaderboard

@mvan1: Like others here I enjoy your posts on this forum. However, the above statement does not mesh with reality and could not be further from the truth. In fact, given Dilma's unprecedented micromanaging of the economy, in such a disastrous way, during her first term, it is clear that those very policies are responsible for the (predictable) economic problems that resulted in her second term. Let me try to explain with facts. The Dirty Details: - Dilma boasted during her first term that she was establishing a new Macroeconomic Matrix for the country, effectively dismantling the decades-long model of three economic pillars instituted by FHC and yes continued by Lula during his two terms. - The three pillars, otherwise known as the Tripod, were effective monetary policy control of inflation via a central target with a band of tolerance on either side; fiscal policy control via targeted primary surpluses; and a floating exchange rate. - Dilma singlehandedly dismantled those pillars of economic success, and the predictable result was runaway inflation - with no growth to show for it. Why not growth? No tackling of any structural reforms whatsoever. - In terms of monetary policy, while the Central Bank has never been independent, it had been largely autonomous - and Dilma destroyed that credibility built up in FHC's and Lula's two term in her very first term. She neutered Tombini, who was the protege of Meirelles, one of the most effective BC governors the country has ever had. In determining that she wanted Brazil's real interest rates to be at civilized levels, a laudable goal, at any cost, she simply ordered the country's benchmark nominal interest rate, the SELIC, to be lowered to its lowest level ever - 7.25%, regardless of inflation levels. With nominal rates at that level, and inflation above 5%, she achieved her goal of real interest rates of 2%. Real interest rates were about to improve further, into negative territory, with inflation spiralling out of control. That folly was recognized way too late, and the interest rate hiking cycle lasted well over two years - with nominal rates now at 14.25%, and real interest rates the highest in a decade at around 5%. Policy Grade: FAIL - In terms of fiscal policy, her administration spent heavily, with absolutely no structural reforms, and provided unprecedented levels of government subsidized loans to pet companies in pet industries (Odebrecht, in the contruction sector, comes instantly to mind - a notable player in Petrobras scandal). For the first time in decades, the country had no primary surplus - critical to credit rating agencies and investors - but ran primary deficits. Worse, through pedaladas, or accounting shenanigans clearly illegal as they run contrary to the country's Fiscal Responsibility Law (LRF), she tried to make the situation look better than it was. The TCU responsible for ruling on this matter, was set to issue a negative ruling which yes, would constitute grounds for a possible impeachment, but the political pressure on this theoretically technical body is enormous, and the decision will probably end in 'pizza.' It is the fiscal setbacks which led Moody's to downgrade Brazil to the cusp of junk last week, and set its debt ratios much higher than typical investment grade countries. And again, such fiscal recklessness led inevitably to runaway inflation. Policy Grade: FAIL - Exchange rate policy has also been erratic - her first administration attempted to manipulate on the devaluation side, then when disaster hit, she changed in midstream to strengthen the besieged real, and now is content on largely devalued real in the 3.5 range. These interventions have defied economic logic, and further hit credibility. The net result has been further inflation. Policy Grade: FAIL - Last but not least, the scale of her intervention in such sectors as electricity distribution has been as ill-thought-out as it was unprecedented since the days of military rule: controls that have discouraged further investment, increased costs, and huge tariff hikes on the end user, the consumer. Worse, during her re-election campaign, she blocked the resultant tariff hikes until after her electoral win, and so the electricty bills have increased close to 50% this year alone. Which by the way, is the largest contributor to the double-digit inflation rate. Policy Grade: FAIL I could go on, but enough is enough. Inescapable conclusion: Dilma's own (failed) policies were absolutely responsible for the predictable and ruinous economic consequences they wrought. The only upside here is that through her pyrrhic win, it is Dilma and Dilma alone who must deal with the political and economic fallout of ill-begotten decisionmaking. (Aside of course from the poor povao, who have to suffer needlessly through all this.) It just would not have been just for Aecio or Marina to have stuck with cleaning up Dilma's mess. The only other upside, as noted through the protests, is that the povao have woken up to this reality and desperately want her and her policies eliminated from their economic and political landscape.

I am so tired of people who read and then consider themselves experts on the politics of foreign countries. Nobody from outside the country can truly understand what goes on politically in a foreign land. Unless you are fluent in Portuguese and read papers and magazines in Brazil and watch TV news in portuguese, you really have no idea of the dynamics in a country that is not your own. And even then if you do not live there , you can't really understand. Quite tough to make sense of one's own country!