Why is the media so intent on cheerleading for Brazil?

"Why is the media so intent on cheerleading for Brazil?

Posted by: Aaron Swartz | July 31, 2008 9:24 AM "

One word: Venezuela.

I wonder if the stringer who wrote the Times article has a day job in the Brazilian finance industry, maybe in credit cards.

One word: Venezuela.

Posted by: amalg | July 31, 2008 9:54 AM

This doesn't make any sense to me. Seems small potatoes.

Is this why Baker cares if they are exagerating? It's about ideology?

amalg is right, it is about Venezuela, but also about Ecuador and Bolivia. Lula is the moderate (read: willing to give capitalism everything it wants) who stands against those crazy left leaders who expropriate stuff and hang out with the Castros.

Baker cares about it from an economic reporting angle... "beat the press" anyone?[according to Jim]

1) managerial class-- i.e. it distorts economics for people who don't necessarily have ph.'d in economics (i.e. all of us)--we aren't necessarily able to pick up obvious points if one was a trained economist. You have an elite group telling all us folk what to think. It's a power move. Leniinism worked out so well--no?

2) democracy--the media should be more transparent, open, and honest on where, who, and how they get sources so that readers can more accurately judge the information

3) ideology -add 1 and 2 from above with our electoral system that is based on media PR campaigns over issues

4) he's a curmudgeon who is mad at the other economist who would not sit with him at lunch during graduate school...

5) okay not 4... but 1 through 3 seem legit to me... maybe thats the way i read him at least

amalg is right, it is about Venezuela, but also about Ecuador and Bolivia. Lula is the moderate (read: willing to give capitalism everything it wants) who stands against those crazy left leaders who expropriate stuff and hang out with the Castros.

I agree Lula is a moderate, but to me he seems more leftist than you give him credit for. Plus Lula hangs out with the Castros and Chavez. (have you not been paying attention?) Are you one of those people on the Internets with impossibly high standards?

To me if Brazil was doing well, it would be good news. It would mean Lula's social democratic approch is working and that countries outside the First World are getting more powerful and will have more bargaining power, like China and India. And Brazil is more democratic than China.

It'd be useful to have this kind of critique also wrapped in the context of the value of GDP.

I'm no economist, but I think there are some legitimate critiques of the number being bandied about, and I think Dean has even entertained them now and again. So when is the number important, meaningful, where does it stop? Could Brazil be on the up for different reasons and could both the NYT's endorsement of their growth be off as well as the sense that maybe they're not doing well because of their GDP?

I just don't know.

Could you please explain why slow growth is so bad? Perhaps it is better in the long run. Fast growth seems awfully destructive.

Baker is in good form with his cherry picking data!

Of course Russia and Argentina are growing faster considering that in recent years both economies collapsed and then regrew.

Brazil is about where Argentina and Russia is, while twice as wealthy as China.

I'm not sure why, but Baker has been spinning Mexico's growth as long as he has been writing. Where does 2.0% come from? The past 20 years? It was 3.3% in 2007 and higher in 2006.

Baker won't give it to us straight, so we have to look it up ourselves.

Gladstone old boy, I chose a 6-year time frame because that is how long Lula has been in office.

Brazil´s GDP growth between 1965 and 1980 averaged 9% a year, the country grew a lot from the 50´s up to the second oil crises of the late 70´s. More than 80% of it´s population already live in cities, comparing it to India, China or Peru is just misleading... And if you talk to me about Russia and Argentina, those economies are full of imbalances, take the record oil prices out of the play and let´s see what is left of Russia´s economy, take the Kirshners populist monetary expansion policies out of the Argentinian economy and let´s see what happens!

Sorry to say Guilherme that Argentina's growth is not caused by the monetary policy (although it has not hampered like in Brazil), but because of a positive terms of trade shock. And that is the story, Brazil should be growing but is not, and the little spike in the last year and this have already left huge current account deficit (which Argentina does NOT have)!

Low cost of living, availability of work, cultural sophistication -- these things matter more than GDP. It's entirely subjective, of course, which makes these factors unattractive for analysts to consider.

Actually "robust economies" are virtually nonexistent (except possibly for a few isolated tribes). Modern "economic growth" and "levels of development" are characterized by the predicament of "overwhelming dependence on an exhaustible resource" (fossil fuels generally, the last quoted words being William Catton's). As well as on an extremely precarious system of just-in-time global distribution of components for manufacturing processes and goods, made possible by the brief era of cheap and plentiful fossil fuels (Barry Lynn, The End of the Line, 2005). This is not an academic point, as this course can only lead to disaster. (The "first law of sustainability": "growth in population and/or consumption of resources cannot be sustained," paraphrasing Albert Bartlett.) Perhaps Brazil's cane ethanol and oil discoveries near the end of the era of growth will give it some time to wise up, not enjoyed by other growth-addicted countries.

Argentina is suffering from another fiscal crisis. Everyday Kirchner has to bully some sector of the economy to avoid a major problem. First, the energy producers, now the agriculture.

Brazil is facing several problems, but the Kirchner couple is´nt offering anything better.

If you want to know about Brazil's slow growth, just go see the Index of Economic Freedom:

"Brazil suffers from weak financial freedom and a large central government. Regulatory inflexibility makes starting a business take much longer than the world average. Significant restrictions on foreign capital exist in many areas, and the government remains heavily involved in banking and finance. The judicial system and other areas of the public sector are inefficient and subject to corruption."

"The overall freedom to start, operate, and close a business is limited by Brazil's national regulatory environment. Starting a business takes more than three times the world average of 43 days, and obtaining a business license takes more than the global average of 234 days. Despite reform efforts, regulation is complex, discretionary, and non-transparent. Closing a business is difficult."

"Brazil's inflexible employment regulations should be improved to enhance employment and productivity growth. The non-salary cost of employing a worker is high, and dismissing a redundant employee can be costly. Benefits mandated by rigid labor legislation amplify overall labor costs. The high cost of laying off a worker creates a risk aversion for companies that would otherwise hire more people and grow."

"Corruption is perceived as significant. Brazil ranks 70th out of 163 countries in Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index for 2006. Businesses bidding on government procurement contracts at times encounter corruption, which is also a problem in the lower courts and can discourage investment."

"