Ad hominem and left wing activists.

[Rapier]

Yes, I thank FHC for saving the country from inflation, i never denied that, and I think that despite some problems, he was a good president. But I dont know where you assumed that a communist government of the military ditatorship were brazil's only options. Joao gourlat and janio quadros weren't communists or anything, they just were left winged. The middle class of the time was paranoid, since the country had never had a president that thought of the poor a little, and started the communist acusations. The militars used that to take "temporary" control of the country.

Not exactly true, since Vargas was highly populistic and acted as a father to the poor. He even based some of our laws on Mussolini's fascism (minimal wage, vacations etc.). I'm not speaking about Jango having been a communist, but the state was in utter chaos and somebody needed to intervene before the communist pressure reached its peak. Also, that "it's all fault of the damn bourgeois" logic again? Sigh. At least tell me why you think it is, because we see things through different perspectives.

@Rehab

I think that the USA's health system, prior to the Obamacare, had a lot of expensive hospitals in which some people couldn't even be attended. Since then, as a public health care system was established, more people have been included in its health insurance plans. Still, I find it expensive, with a lot of demand and lacking in quality. As far as I can see, the cons outweigh the pros, and other solutions should be exploited and taken. Solutions that truly make a difference. Holding the monopoly of virtue and good intentions doesn't matter to me.

Correct me if I am wrong.

@Miikaya

Low-term problems with unemployment? Small long-term problems on GPD? I think there's far too much optimism within those allegations, and I hope I'm wrong in the long run. We'll see what happens. Still, the cost of his program on the USA's economy is quite evident now, and there's no way to look at it with optimism, or just put them aside. The dollar has fallen considerably, and unemployment is increasing.

[Nobody]

Not exactly true, since Vargas was highly populistic and acted as a father to the poor. He even based some of our laws on Mussolini's fascism (minimal wage, vacations etc.). I'm not speaking about Jango having been a communist, but the state was in utter chaos and somebody needed to intervene before the communist pressure reached its peak. Also, that "it's all fault of the damn bourgeois" logic again? Sigh. At least tell me why you think it is, because we see things through different perspectives.

Vargas just did what he did to the poor in order to be elected. Populism =/= actually caring for the poor. He kind of reminds me of Lula in that way hahaha

I'm not blaming the 'bourgeois' (GOD I HATE THIS TERM). I'm saying that they were, like 99% of the population of the time not well instructed and thought that the government of the time was communist, which it WASN'T. The militars used that to take the country for themselves, pretending it was just a provisional government. I doubt the middle class of the time wanted the government that we had between 64-85. It was not really the fault of the middle class, but of the military, that fooled them.

Here is what I'm talking about:

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcha_da_Fam%C3%ADlia_com_Deus_pela_Liberdade

This is what triggered the military coup de stat

BTW, I asked Eclipse to lock this topic, since it was so derailed and it wasn't a very clever topic to begin with (I go to places with many more left winged people, mainly my university, which might have affected my perception). Expect it to be locked as soon as she gets online. If you want to continue to discuss about this, feel free to create a topic about it, I'll happily show my opinions there.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Nobody

[Axie]

As a Brazilian I see more right-wing hysteria than anything. Granted, our idea of "right-wing" still isn't really right-wing, but still, it's scary to see just how many people react negatively to minorities wanting equal rights. :shrug:

[Redwall]

Low-term problems with unemployment? Small long-term problems on GPD? I think there's far too much optimism within those allegations, and I hope I'm wrong in the long run. We'll see what happens. Still, the cost of his program on the USA's economy is quite evident now, and there's no way to look at it with optimism, or just put them aside. The dollar has fallen considerably, and unemployment is increasing.

Unemployment in the US is decreasing.

And stop with the doubletalk: without providing any supporting evidence beyond your own economic intuition, dismissing the CBO's work as mere "allegations" (heh) isn't convincing anyone. "All models are wrong, but some are useful" is something you hear a lot in the sciences; if you're gonna smear the CBO report, your job is to then rectify its mistakes and come up with a more "useful" (accurate) model, one that's actually reproducible and that does a better job explaining the economic situation the CBO report studies.

[Chiki]

It would never have happened if the door had been closed at first place. The thief wouldn't have been able to rob their home if that was the case. It's also funny how you consider the rich people as immoral right off the bat, as if they were part of a beehive legion. People are corrupt by themselves. They are born as natural bastards with a latent potential for evil. If you just allow them to do so, you're opening up opportunities for them. Being rich means nothing, just like being poor doesn't (regarding morality). Can you look over a materialistic point of view to an individualistic point of view?

I don't think you understand the concept of blameworthiness. The thief isn't a robot who just steals stuff without the ability to self-reflect. The thief decided on stealing the house with free will (ability to self-reflect) so he is to blame.

I'm going to ignore the rest of your post about people having bad natures and so on because it's not relevant.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Chiki

[Defeatist Elitist]

@Defeatist Elitist

You can see that free market works when you see that the countries with it are more prosperous, rich, and the poor have more accessibility to opportunities. A more open market means more competition, better prices, better services and products, and more accessibility for the poor. Russia learned this quite late. Our country is still overprotectionist with its national market, hence why the prices are high and the competition is small.

I'll read about Canada's health system, but the USA and Brazil's attempt to have a public health care system failed miserably. It's no use to hold the monopoly of virtue ("I want a health care system on which everyone gets treated well") if you can't make this true, or if you have to suffocate people on taxes for it (where will they spend their money if it's taken?). I'm not indifferent to the poor. I just want good, solid solutions for our social problems, and that can't be brought with kind, optimistic words.

But free market health care solutions, or at least the ones that we have seen so far don't work. Free market education systems have the same issue. I am not arguing that nothing should ever be done via the free market, I am arguing that some things definitely should not.

As I pointed out, Canada has a working health system, and a working public education system (I'd like to see them slightly expanded, but honestly I can't complain). They are good, solid solutions for our social problems. This is my argument. You are making a lot of claims about free market solutions to these problems, but those free market solutions are not visible. On the other hand, state controlled options exist and function better than the alternatives. You talked about my "monopoly on virtue", but I also seem to have a monopoly on real world success.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Defeatist Elitist