Brazil riots - world cup 2014 in danger?

I'm bringing the talk of the other thread here

lo zio said:
u mean some sort of liquid democracy? or perhaps direct democracy? that's never gonna happen. when u read rousseau direct democracy sounds amazing.... but it's actually a terrible form of government (not to mention utopian). ever since the end of the cold war, political parties have been losing their grip on the people and the ability to catalyse and drive consensus (wich is not a bad thing imo), but we still haven't found a different formula.... and direct democracy is definitely not the answer.
anyway this is actually a very interesting topic of conversation... perhaps u should open a specific thread to discuss about it.... so we don't drag this thread off topic :))
Click to expand...

Oh Ben, someone showed me some article at work, but I didn't catch the link, cause I thought somethings were pretty stupid, it was someone saying how the change of the media gave power to the people putting them on a new level, that could not be ignored, even though in my opinion and in theory of course, people were always supposed to be heard, thats how our current system is already.
That someone was thinking way ahead, like a change on the structure, how the politicians are supposed to represent the people, distributing that power more and more with the help of technology :CONFUSE: Yep, the writer trusted technology that much
Like I said before, I thought it was an absurd theory, at least for the next couple of hundred (maybe even thousand) years.

I can't really think of a better formula as well, in theory the current one works. But people just don't pay attention, they are too busy trying their best to survive the hungry capitalist world. The elections is when people reflect some more, but the thing is the guys we are voting to work for us, actually work with them, if that makes any sense to you? I've been working near politicians for very few years, but that's already the impression it gave me, they work together a lot, parties that are in theory rivals, help each other, the power is being distributed between themselves not the people. Those that question are few, and they are quickly doomed.
The bigger problem I see there is not even corruption, its how difficult it is to join the club.
 
You need leaders to organize for change, peaceful marches in demonstrations w/ order and peace. Martin Luther King went against a country/ government/idealist-people for civil rights for ALL minorities .

Thuggery and looting is sending NO message ,but throwing wood to fire and spreading the heat in the wrong direction. This action will cause a negative effect. The people need to organize and let the police know their actions before hand to let the police understand that change is for them too. Nothing is simple but I would think the message needs to separate from the looters/thuggery . This just gives the government justification for controlling the up rising and killing the message w/ everything else.

I hope some leaders will rise and try to mend what broke.
 
I don't agree with the riots, but i can understand the protests.
I don't know much about Brazil but it doesn't make much sense to invest billions in new infrastructure if a large part of the people don't have enough money to eat a decent meal every day.
As much as i love football, if that is true, giving a decent meal is a priority, not organising some big tournament were the majority of the profits will go to FIFA and to the corrupt CBF.

This world cup can also be organised in other countries, it happened before (in 1986 the WC should have been played in Columbia but there was a major earthquake).
 
Bebo said:
Nothing is simple but I would think the message needs to separate from the looters/thuggery
Click to expand...
separating protests from vandalism isn't just "not simple", bebo. it's impossible. those thugs and parasites always look for theese events and gatherings to unleash their brutal instincts, and no one has ever found a way to avoid this (martin luther king's march was something completely different and it's not a fitting example here... if u're looking for an american analogy, then seattle is much more appropriate).
sauce said:
Oh Ben, someone showed me some article at work, but I didn't catch the link, cause I thought somethings were pretty stupid, it was someone saying how the change of the media gave power to the people putting them on a new level, that could not be ignored, even though in my opinion and in theory of course, people were always supposed to be heard, thats how our current system is already.
That someone was thinking way ahead, like a change on the structure, how the politicians are supposed to represent the people, distributing that power more and more with the help of technology Yep, the writer trusted technology that much
Click to expand...
here in italy 1 year ago we began a liquid democracy experiment based on the technology (based on the web, to be specific). it's called "movimento 5 stelle" and it's led by a former stand up comedian (beppe grillo). they had a monumental success at the elections in febbruary (they were actually the most voted party in italy!), but ever since the elections (wich occurred only 4 months ago) they proved themselves absolutely incapable to rule. long story short, so far this liquid democracy experiment based on the internet has been a spectacular failure.
sauce said:
I can't really think of a better formula as well, in theory the current one works. But people just don't pay attention, they are too busy trying their best to survive the hungry capitalist world. The elections is when people reflect some more, but the thing is the guys we are voting to work for us, actually work with them, if that makes any sense to you? I've been working near politicians for very few years, but that's already the impression it gave me, they work together a lot, parties that are in theory rivals, help each other, the power is being distributed between themselves not the people. Those that question are few, and they are quickly doomed.
The bigger problem I see there is not even corruption, its how difficult it is to join the club.
Click to expand...
yeah, i perfectly understand what u mean. and actually the 2 aspects (corruption and social stratification) are strictly related; corruption is essential in order to preserve the status quo; it's the leverage bad politicians use to mantain their position of power and preserve their privileges.
however, when u look at history, u realise u're going in the right direction. sure the brasilian social ladder is very difficult to climb theese days.... but up until 40 years ago it was absolutely impossible (not just difficult) to climb it..... and 30 years before that, there was no ladder at all (brasil is basically coming from a pseudo-feudal system, and just 70 years ago social classes were almost as static as they were in europe during feudalism).

brazil is just coming our of a major economic boom. if history taught us something is that, during this national economic booms, social progress can't keep up the pace with economic growth; health care, education, infrastructure, public transportation and welfare usually come long after the boom. the pattern has always been the same; first u have the financial growth, wich leads to a major increas in corruption.... wich leads to inflation (that's exactly where brasil are right now; despite the huge economic growth and the amazing growth of occupation, inflation keeps rising, wich is a clear sign of corruption).
the inflation quickly leads to public discontent (people tend to get angry when they know their country is rich, but their public services still suck). this discontent then degenerates into vibrant protests and those protests eventually work as a wake up call for the government.
when u look at this sort of "calendar", u realise brasil is actually ahead of schedule. some welfare programs infact aready kicked in, like bolsa familia, wich was a great success (i never thought i'd say that, as i thought it was a pretty stupid idea, but clearely i was completely wrong).

what u need to do right now is not to kill the protest entirely (that would be a mistake). u just need to dial it down and put the whole thing on stand by. the Pt got the message loud and clear; now they realise u can embarass them in front of the whole world.... and they know u'll have more and more chances to do it in the upcoming years (with the world cup and the olympic games).
u know what really scares our governments? not the protests... they can handle those...... it's the international spotlight that frightens them. having dozens of thousands of brasilians marching down the streets in protest is just a nuisance..... having them doing it when the world cup or the olympic games are on and the whole world is watching... that is a major crisis for them!

since the government can't find a reliable interlocutor, dilma rousseff is trying to put out this fire by addressing the whole nation on tv. that speech she gave yesterday was just brilliant. now the government will make a long list of promises to calm down the people..... and lucky u, they'll have to keep all of those promises, because 1 year from now the whole world will be focusing its attention on brasil and rouseff can't afford any troubles for the world cup (just look at what resonance theese protests had around the globe and consider that the confederations cup is nothing compared to a world cup, in terms of mediatic echo).

u got your government right where u want them; they'll be under the gun for the next 3 years (until the olmypic games in rio will be over).... in hindsight the world cup and olympic games will favour brasilian people a lot (because without those 2 big events coming up, u wouldn't have any leverage right now).
now u need to leave the table while u're winning and turn the heat down.
 
Last edited:
to a major increas in corruption.... wich leads to inflation (that's exactly where brasil are right now; despite the huge economic growth and the amazing growth of occupation, inflation keeps rising, wich is a clear sign of corruption)
Click to expand...

What makes you think inflation is caused by corruption, Lo zio?
 
Godotelli said:
What makes you think inflation is caused by corruption, Lo zio?
Click to expand...

in 2002 a study published by Lambsdorff and Schinke proved the relation of causality between corruption and inflation. they analysed more than 80 different countries and the results of their study gave empirical demonstration of the relation of cause and effect between high levels of corruption and a consequential rise in inflation. i'm sure u can find their study on the internet ;)

however i'm not saying inflation is only caused by corruption.... there are several other factors wich may lead to inflation of course.
but when a country has growing gdp and, despite that, the inflation still keeps rising, then that means the main cause of that inflationary pressure is political corruption.
sauce said:
I sure hope so Ben, always a pleasure reading your insights
Click to expand...
thanks buddy. btw how did brazil react to dilma's speech? i thought it was brilliant, but i also heard people in brasil don't trust her that much anymore.
 
Last edited:
But inflation is a result of printing too much money too quickly.

I suppose it can be consistent with corruption, in that it is an insidious tax on the less wealthy for the benefit of the wealthy (since they spend the money before it gets into circulation and thus still retaining its pre-inflationary value) but inflation is always a monetary phenomena.
 
Godotelli said:
But inflation is a result of printing too much money too quickly.

I suppose it can be consistent with corruption, in that it is an insidious tax on the less wealthy for the benefit of the wealthy (since they spend the money before it gets into circulation and thus still retaining its pre-inflationary value) but inflation is always a monetary phenomena.
Click to expand...

Inflation could also be a result of high/unnecessary public spending, which is, at least in our case, constantly associated with corruption. Economists have been blaming our huge spendinds for making it difficult to restrain inflation.
 
Last edited:
lukas_rod said:
Inflation could also be a result of high/unnecessary public spending, which is, at least in our case, constantly associated with corruption. Economists have been blaming our huge spendinds for making it difficult to restrain inflation.
Click to expand...

Yes, if the spending is funded by 'printing' money
 
Godotelli said:
But inflation is a result of printing too much money too quickly.

I suppose it can be consistent with corruption, in that it is an insidious tax on the less wealthy for the benefit of the wealthy (since they spend the money before it gets into circulation and thus still retaining its pre-inflationary value) but inflation is always a monetary phenomena.
Click to expand...
yep, it's a monetary phenomenon.... whose causes are mostly political.

to say that inflation is a result of printing too much money is certainly correct (although not quite accurate), but that's just an explanation of the phenomenon.... it doesn't say anything of its causes (wich is what we're discussing here).

exempli gratia: why am i writing this post? i might answer "because i'm typing on my keyboard". although that would be accurate, such an answer wouldn't add anything to the conversation.... obviously me typing on the keyboard is indeed the "cause" of my posting, but such an answer doen't really explains my reasons. u would certainly reply "da! but why are you typing on your keyboard?" and that would lead to the actual cause of my posting wich is "to answer to u" or "to explain myself".

likewise, saying inflation is caused by an excessive money supply growth rate, compared to the potential output (or, like u said, by "printing too much money") is definitely correct but it just explains the phenomenon, not its causes. therefore i might ask u "yes sure, but why do central banks do it? why do they decide to print too much money? what's the cause, the reason, the catalyst factor of this process?"

there can be many different reasons to encourage an inflationary process. infact, a small rate of inflation can even be a good thing, as it stimulates foreign investments. many governments allow their central banks to raise the inflation rate a little bit (by printing too much money, like u said) in order to encourage their exports, for instance (italy used to do it a lot, back when we had our own national coin).

inflation also happens to be the best way to "feed" corruption. it's much better than raising taxes (because if u raise the taxation, the people will notice it immediately, whereas the average citizen isn't usually aware of the money supply growth rate).... and it's also better than issuing bonds, coz u don't have to pay any interests (not in the short term at least).
in that paper i mentioned yesterday, Lambsdorff and Schinke proved with empirical data that corruption is the main cause of the inflationary processes in developing countries with a considerable gdp growth rate (such as brazil) :))
 
Last edited:
lo zio said:
thanks buddy. btw how did brazil react to dilma's speech? i thought it was brilliant, but i also heard people in brasil don't trust her that much anymore.
Click to expand...

Yep, most people don't trust these speeches anymore, I don't think its her fault. The message was understandable though.
Let's hope those meetings she's having actually have some feedback to the people.
 
I think that people complaining about stuff like the government ain't givin a shit about the civilian well-being,but spend much money to showcase their country outside the borders it has,are absolutely correct.But people destroying other people's property for that... No.It just deepens the injury.
 
sauce said:
Yep, most people don't trust these speeches anymore, I don't think its her fault. The message was understandable though.
Let's hope those meetings she's having actually have some feedback to the people.
Click to expand...
meetings? what meetings?



oh btw guys, i need a little help from our native english speaker here.
me said:
yep, it's a monetary phenomenon.... whose causes are mostly political.
Click to expand...
this is wrong, isn'it? i should have written "wich causes are mostly political", am i right?
:))
 
Last edited:
lo zio said:
meetings? what meetings?



oh btw guys, i need a little help from our native english speaker here.

this is wrong, isn'it? i should have written "wich causes are mostly political", am i right?
:))
Click to expand...

You're right it's wich .native English speaker (me) :SMUG:
 
cfdh_edmundo said:
I would have written, "the causes of which are mostly..."
Click to expand...

causes is good , just not convincing . Now, the reason is putting more direct, it explains 'why' . Then , again ,I think Ben is not looking for a direct ,but an indirect object.

'elected officials are exploiting the tragedy for political gain' that`s yank talk :LOL:
 
gerd said:
I don't agree with the riots, but i can understand the protests.
I don't know much about Brazil but it doesn't make much sense to invest billions in new infrastructure if a large part of the people don't have enough money to eat a decent meal every day.
As much as i love football, if that is true, giving a decent meal is a priority, not organising some big tournament were the majority of the profits will go to FIFA and to the corrupt CBF.

This world cup can also be organised in other countries, it happened before (in 1986 the WC should have been played in Columbia but there was a major earthquake).
Click to expand...

But what do the organizers or politicians care ?

The politicians will jump aboard to show off their credentials and gain publicity while the organizers are solely interested in making a profit at the end of the tournament.

Which is why they will use several sponsors who really have a dubious attachment to sport that promotes a healthy lifestyle for instance.

And I am getting sick of the way it is becoming more and more regimented.

In South Africa street sellers were forced off the street just in case they might be selling unofficial drinks or food or had their homes bulldozed to make way for stadiums that now lie mostly derelict.

How exactly did this benefit the people in South Africa ? How will Brazil 2014 benefit the people at large ? A short term influx of tourists ?

You look at Sochi 2014 and what is happening there and it is likely to be repeated for WC2018.

It is costing billions. Money that should be better spent on improving infrastructure particularly outside of the major cities where people are still on the breadline.

Who is profitting ? Government officials and the oligarchs.

As far as I am concerned sporting events have become over commercialized and very far removed from their original intentions and from the supporters themselves.

Only a catastrophe would stop a World Cup (and fingers crossed of course we do not want to see that happen) but considerations of ethics do not really come into these sorts of decisions.
 
I tend to agree with you Albi but never underestimate the power of the people. This protest happens to coïncide with the Confederations Cup, so the people who protest (and unfortunately who riot) have the attention of the world press.... Stranger things have happened.

Of course if by miracle the World Cup would not be organized in Brazil, it would be organized in another country and it would be as over commercialized as the one in Brazil...
 
gerd said:
I tend to agree with you Albi but never underestimate the power of the people. This protest happens to coïncide with the Confederations Cup, so the people who protest (and unfortunately who riot) have the attention of the world press.... Stranger things have happened.

Of course if by miracle the World Cup would not be organized in Brazil, it would be organized in another country and it would be as over commercialized as the one in Brazil...
Click to expand...

Power to the people Gerd. :))

For far too long on this planet it's resources have been used to make very small sections of the population rich beyond the dreams of avarice whilst the vast majority struggle along for a crumb.

Should this be accepted ? No. We all have just one chance on this planet and why shouldn't everyone have as much chance as everyone else ?

We are ephemeral creatures and most of the time it is devoted to running along in this silly and ultimately futile rat race instead of savouring being alive.

Perhaps in the not too distant future as the demands of local space exploration impinge it may force a rethink in terms of the way we live globally and as slaves to the capitalistic model.

And let's hope too that the UN get's it's act together and starts forcing governments to take action on population growth and protecting the environment or all these distractions will prove pointless too.
 
lo zio said:
yep, it's a monetary phenomenon.... whose causes are mostly political.

to say that inflation is a result of printing too much money is certainly correct (although not quite accurate), but that's just an explanation of the phenomenon.... it doesn't say anything of its causes (wich is what we're discussing here).

exempli gratia: why am i writing this post? i might answer "because i'm typing on my keyboard". although that would be accurate, such an answer wouldn't add anything to the conversation.... obviously me typing on the keyboard is indeed the "cause" of my posting, but such an answer doen't really explains my reasons. u would certainly reply "da! but why are you typing on your keyboard?" and that would lead to the actual cause of my posting wich is "to answer to u" or "to explain myself".

likewise, saying inflation is caused by an excessive money supply growth rate, compared to the potential output (or, like u said, by "printing too much money") is definitely correct but it just explains the phenomenon, not its causes. therefore i might ask u "yes sure, but why do central banks do it? why do they decide to print too much money? what's the cause, the reason, the catalyst factor of this process?"

there can be many different reasons to encourage an inflationary process. infact, a small rate of inflation can even be a good thing, as it stimulates foreign investments. many governments allow their central banks to raise the inflation rate a little bit (by printing too much money, like u said) in order to encourage their exports, for instance (italy used to do it a lot, back when we had our own national coin).

inflation also happens to be the best way to "feed" corruption. it's much better than raising taxes (because if u raise the taxation, the people will notice it immediately, whereas the average citizen isn't usually aware of the money supply growth rate).... and it's also better than issuing bonds, coz u don't have to pay any interests (not in the short term at least).
in that paper i mentioned yesterday, Lambsdorff and Schinke proved with empirical data that corruption is the main cause of the inflationary processes in developing countries with a considerable gdp growth rate (such as brazil) :))
Click to expand...

Yes, that's true enough, but inflation doesn't necessarily mean there is corruption, which is what I was getting at. Infact, most inflation is caused by politicians/people promising/wanting 'free' stuff. You can only borrow and tax (tho inflation is a tax) so much and so politicians turn to the printing press (tho it is all digitised nowadays, of course). Governments also push for inflation in order to (temporarily) increase employment, amongst other things.
People think of corruption as only involving 'evil mustachioed capitalist corporations' and so whilst inflation may initially benefit the rich at the expense of the less well off, so to does inflation benefit the less well off to the detriment of the unborn. Of course we don't call it corruption then because we're benefiting*** at the expense of someone else! :SMUG:

***or at least we think we are
 
Last edited:
Godotelli said:
Yes, that's true enough, but inflation doesn't necessarily mean there is corruption, which is what I was getting at. Infact, most inflation is caused by politicians/people promising/wanting 'free' stuff. You can only borrow and tax (tho inflation is a tax) so much and so politicians turn to the printing press (tho it is all digitised nowadays, of course). Governments also push for inflation in order to (temporarily) increase employment, amongst other things.
People think of corruption as only involving 'evil mustachioed capitalist corporations' and so whilst inflation may initially benefit the rich at the expense of the less well off, so to does inflation benefit the less well off to the detriment of the unborn. Of course we don't call it corruption then because we're benefiting*** at the expense of someone else! :SMUG:

***or at least we think we are
Click to expand...
please explain this free stuff and how it relates to inflation... you lost me completely on that correlation.... i would like to understand which politicians in england can print money?
 
gomito#10 said:
please explain this free stuff and how it relates to inflation... you lost me completely on that correlation.... i would like to understand which politicians in england can print money?
Click to expand...

The free stuff is the stuff politicians promise to give us if we vote for him/her. It's called inflation-financed spending and can take different forms, eg. overtly this is obvious- inflate to spend, covertly, and more common in the west, it is inflate to pay back. Either way, it is a tax - tho usually on different people.
 
I think the WC2014 could be in danger. When the people from a country like Brazil don't agree with a WC being played in their nation, and when they detract Pelé as a traitor, it means shit is really serious.

The problem now is that the stadiums are built, and the damage is done. People should have risen 4 years ago when it was decided the WC would go to Brazil.

But no doubt it is an event that is made only to give a $2 billion profit to FIFA and benefit some local politicians (who certainly have their fingers in the pie, seeing how we're talking about Brazil).
The WC2010 in South Africa left the country with a dozen white elephants to be maintained and a huge financial loss to recover from.

As much as I like football, I have to agree that Brazil shouldn't be hosting this WC right now. I think FIFA are like a wave of predators, a cloud of grasshoppers coming into a corn plantation and consuming everything in their path, and leaving some damage behind.

The silver lining about the protests in Brazil is that people are awakening and it certainly opens up a precedent for people to rise up and voice their discontent in the future, because in the past they had been so quiet and subdued.
 
If FIFA would pay tax, that money could be used for better education and for the struggle against poverty. I know it sounds simplistic, but it isn't normal,logical and fair that FIFA (one of the riichest organisations) can act tax free just like the bobo's who are the top guys.

Blatter and his cohorts should ask themselves questions if even a football crazy people like Brazilians are against his world cup...but that is one of the biggest problems, Blatter and his cohorts don't care about the people, they don't care about football, they only care about themselves...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom