I remember when Brazil was "taking off", president Lula was called "the man" by Mr. Obama, Eike Batista was heralded the modern Brazilian industrialist and the seemingly limitless "pre-salt reserves" was going to turn the country into a leading oil producer.
Since then, we've learned this short-lived economic boom was really just attributable to outsized Chinese demand for commodities which went away as quickly as it came about. The Workers' Party spent its ~16 years in power fostering the centuries old crony capitalism that has fundamentally defined that South American nation since it was a Portuguese colony, throughout its 19th century monarchy, its 20th century republic, the congress-appointed military regime in power between 1964 and 1988 and all of the democratically elected presidencies since.
Eike Baptista was indicted and convicted for fraud and embezzlement, his companies sold for pennies on the dollar.
Lula's anointed political successor, Dilma Rousseff, was ridiculed, impeached and couldn't even win a senate seat in the last elections.
Lula himself was indicted, tried and convicted, along with hundreds of other politicians – not to mention the countless more the country hasn't yet gotten around to convict.
The populace radicalized to the point of destroying families and friendships before fatally electing a bizarro president – when the alternative was keeping the Workers' Party in power for another 4 or 8 years, Brazilians opted instead for a diabolical Faustian-Orwellian blend.
I'd love to hear Obama's take on how wrong he was. And I caution others to resist the temptation of extrapolating from a handful of moderately successful economic years, thinking their countries have fundamentally changed overnight.
You know what causes extreme changes overnight? A revolution. Brazil hasn't experienced one, and I doubt Portugal has.
The article is just a fluff piece, stating some facts but sugarcoating their full meaning.
Pretty much everyone in Portugal ( other than the usual ones ) rolls their eyes when the read stuff like this.
Although not at the same level of Brazil, politicians in Portugal do the same thing depending of how arrogant they are in not getting caught. It's full of bottom feeders trying to get some cushy position for themselves, I think it's our main problem right now, the sheer amount of money sucking parasites from top to bottom.
Since then, we've learned this short-lived economic boom was really just attributable to outsized Chinese demand for commodities which went away as quickly as it came about. The Workers' Party spent its ~16 years in power fostering the centuries old crony capitalism that has fundamentally defined that South American nation since it was a Portuguese colony, throughout its 19th century monarchy, its 20th century republic, the congress-appointed military regime in power between 1964 and 1988 and all of the democratically elected presidencies since.
Eike Baptista was indicted and convicted for fraud and embezzlement, his companies sold for pennies on the dollar.
Lula's anointed political successor, Dilma Rousseff, was ridiculed, impeached and couldn't even win a senate seat in the last elections.
Lula himself was indicted, tried and convicted, along with hundreds of other politicians – not to mention the countless more the country hasn't yet gotten around to convict.
The populace radicalized to the point of destroying families and friendships before fatally electing a bizarro president – when the alternative was keeping the Workers' Party in power for another 4 or 8 years, Brazilians opted instead for a diabolical Faustian-Orwellian blend.
I'd love to hear Obama's take on how wrong he was. And I caution others to resist the temptation of extrapolating from a handful of moderately successful economic years, thinking their countries have fundamentally changed overnight.
You know what causes extreme changes overnight? A revolution. Brazil hasn't experienced one, and I doubt Portugal has.