Brazzil

...written by an argentiana jornalist....i dont trust your ass, bitch

f**k you....its their f**king tactics you idoit....they f**king suck

if their tactics werent so full of s**t, the masses in brazil would give them all the support they need

yeah land reform needs to be seriously addressed

yeah, media is concentrated in a few peoples hands, but, rede record with its religious owner is differant from globos agenda...channal mst would only push through their own biased agenda..that is the way the f**king media works world wide , idiot....they all suck if you ask me, let me be the head of my media outlit for christs sake...ill put real culture out their..at least you would have to suck on my agenda..

you really think they know what is the culture in brazil ? you really think chanal mst would be anything more than a boring peice of biased dog s**t ?

yeah , their web site(which i have visited before ) and their suposed aspirations all look so noble in print...just like fidel and hugo can sound so noble in their aspirations and speeches ....and their tactics suck the mop big time (hey bitch, you brought up hugo and fidel and morales...i mean what the f**k has mst got to do with 5 cuban spies? and f**k you, ive gone into plenty of detail in thread after thread of the bulls**t they are up to and im tired of repeating myself so i can only say this is one peice of biased crap)

this article is skewed and biased. making assumptions about the things that happened in bolivia and paraguay...i say it is more complex than this idiot is making it out to be...

it is so f**king funny, he paints the media in brazil as though it is so biased in its reporting of these issues, but the media hardly takes on the reality of how farc is raping brazil...looks like they come up short on all sides....

yeah, im for change in the media, land reform, better distribution of wealth, etc....but not mst's version.....they have been around all these years, if their s**t was even halfway on point , they could have gotten a huge part of the population to give them all the support they need...50 percent or more of the population is poor, but , they arnt flocking after mst, why? because they smell the bulls**t...large numbers of rich and middle class do want to see change for the better in brazil..but they cant give support to mst...because their tactics just are f**ked up....

im going to use this article to wipe my ass today on the toilet...

for sure you will see that it isnt just cut and dried like mst or this idiot paint it out to be...there are lots of differant angles to it

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10...te.html?hp

Ricardo: I already had mentioned on this forum that we have one of the best countries on our planet – a very rich country in all kinds of natural resources. Brazil is one of the few countries that has almost everything and in theory could be self-sufficient.

We have one of the largest countries in the world, a terrific location in terms where Brazil is located when compared with the other countries, and most of our land can be useful in one way or another.

We have the largest amount of fresh underground water than any other country in our planet, and that is a very important asset.

Brazil has what it takes to become one of the major economic powers of the 21st century.

But greater expectations held for mankind as a whole it can’t be achieved without a race to the bottom. The only way that global economic equality can be achieved is by sharing massive poverty with the rest of the world. Basically global economic equality can be reached only by the lowest common denominators.

Sorry to disappoint the readers, but that is the reality in our planet and its 7 billion people by December 2011, and about 8 billion people by 2022.

Regarding the goal of “agrarian / land reform” in Brazil in order to provide the means of sustenance to millions of near indigent, landless peasants and slum dwellers, I am sorry, but that it can’t be done, because of global environment, and the economic realities of the 21st century.

Just look what happened in Zimbabwe and what agrarian reform did to that country – total population starvation.

Look at what happened in Brazil when the Brazilian government distributed land in the Amazon area of Brazil to the millions of peasants who where displaced from the innovations in the agriculture business in the 1960’s and 1970’s. That solution has turned into a disaster for Brazil.

If we were back 100 years ago I might have agreed with agrarian / land reform in Brazil, but not in 2009.

The world can’t afford for Brazil to start a land distribution to small farmers. Even here in the United States the small farmers are becoming a dinosaur.

What we need is major corporations with its high technology doing the farming in Brazil to increase output, being well capitalized, and have money to do agricultural research to improve the agricultural system even more.

At this point Brazil can’t afford to distribute its land to small farmers since we can’t turn the clock to a time long gone. Land distribution in theory is a romantic subject, but in practice it would be a disaster for Brazil and the rest of the world that will depend on the future of the extra supply of food produced in Brazil.


*****


You also can read about land rights in Brazil at:

Andrada a Family of Revolutionaries
http://andradabrazilrevolutionaries.blogspot.com/

…The landowners and property owners are the people who should be worried about because of the “Sem Terra” and the “Sem Teto.”


*****


Biography of my great/great grandfather:
Jose Bonifacio de Andrada e Silva - (O Moço) / (The Young)
http://josebonifaciodeandradae...young.html


.

Look at what happened in Brazil when the Brazilian government distributed land in the Amazon area of Brazil to the millions of peasants who where displaced by the innovations in the agriculture business in the 1960’s and 1970’s. That solution has turned into a disaster for Brazil.

.

"Just look what happened in Zimbabwe and what agrarian reform did to that country – total population starvation."

Ricardo, I could call you a few names but instead I prefer to give you a chance to explain the statement above that you wrote. Please explain to us agrarian reform in Zimbabwe. Once again I write, please explain to us agrarian reform in Zimbabwe.

You are ranting and raving about the wrong things. The Argentine reporter has the same right as you to the free speech that you say you believe in. You also have the freedom to not read anything that is written about MST.

Here is something for you to rant and rave about in which neither MST or China were involved and which the chinese will not help bailout in the future.

www.pbs.org Scroll down on the left side of the screen to Frontline and click. When the page open click on the first window, "The Warning."

I hope you have fast internet connection. Enjoy.

i would never ever say it shouldnt be printed , and it was my absolute pleasure to let it out a little , thank god for the free speech on here...and you bet i am a foreiner like him

for sure it was a little early morning indigestion and was better to get it out than sit on it....

man, right on to mst, let them keep on keeping on, im sure they really arnt giving one iota to what i think , they are in the pockets of the government and they can do what ever they think is the best to suit their destiny and ideology...and i have a right to beleive what i beleive about them based on what i have seen and experianced

and i never would pretend to speak for the brazilian people in any way or tell them what to do. they can do what ever they feel best for them....but i am an astute observer and experiancer of brazil...i can see through bulls**t very fast...and i am humbled at the people who are the honest true hard working and cultural roots of this country...

r amoral, ill check out your lincs later

and i tried to check that linc guest, and got the title but nothing else, ill try again later

it is why south america is one incredibly dynamic place to be right now. anybody, but , especialy an american in south america , better not f**k around...you better get aware and try to be informed about the truth, the whole truth....

it will make your ass get as sharp as it is likly to get to really understand the intense dynamic that has and is going down right now.

me , some scholastic intellectual ? hell no, but, leaders and financial experts educated at the highest leval universities just tanked the usa in the last 8 years...i have little faith in intellectuals to lead me to the promised land...

i learned about finances from watching brazils currency deflate horribly in the late 80's and early 90's, beleive me i was telling a lot of americans about the impending disastor of the weak dollar back in 2002 on..."fasten your seat belts..."

i trust my nose, my instincts and my experiances and quest to be informed to deal with the things around me, and they havent failed me....and what the heck, maybe they are differant from yours or anyone here, they work for me, do what works for you

you know, i welcome an article like this...

Yeah. I hope erudite scholars and intellectuals like Augustus,FAB, Adrianerik,ch.c,Costinha, Dr.Cata, DnB,Vinny, etc; would join the debate.

If I have forgotten my other buddies, they will excuse me and still join the fray.

A special message to Adrianerik, "The Guest" & Dr.Cata: Not all the Brasilians are "Bunda moles".

I have been reading your comments under this article and you have rightly mentioned that it was written by an Argentine and translated into English by another. I don't think that anybody paid attention to this "tiny" detail.

My question to our Argentine friends: a) Do they have a similar movement like MST in Argentina? b)If so, is Argentine MST occupying the land that belongs to the "owners of Patagonia?

I don't know about you, ASP, but I think that the Argentines read a lot, complain constantly about everything and decide nothing to solve their problems.Sure, BA is supposed to be the "Paris" of South America and I been there several times and love it. BUT...BUT..the Argentines, IMHO, consider Mussolini to be their idol. I couldn't help laughing when Cristina was yelling and screaming about how much "injustice" was done to her Spanish American fellow "Caudilho" Zé and accompanying him all over Latin America exhorting how Zé has to be restored to power. BTW, OAS (the headman being a Chilean) is another non entity that is going the same way as U.N.

Unfortunately, my friend, Brasil is alone and we have to tread our steps carefully and make reliable allies, friends and trading partners. We are not different from your country, but we can not make the same mistakes you did during the past two decades. Ask yourself a question: Who were responsible for bringing in the Chinese into picture in your country? You are a very intelligent person and I am sure you know the answer.

Lloyd Cata is very astute and absolutely right.

I bet the author as well as the translator of this article have never heard of Dr.Cata.

More to come from me.Continuing to be busy.In the meantime, you enjoy the brief respite from the rains.Take care.

who were responsible for bringing in the chinese into the picture of the usa ? for sure i was not privy, but if i have to make an uneducated guess, i would say :

the same people i mentioned and going back to reagan and the succesive administrations and the highest ups of the fincancial experts...for sure it was orchestrated out of sight by the top eilte of the fincancial purveyors...

about the author. i just figure if a foreiner starts bringing in this crap, as another foreiner im going to hold him to a tougher judgement, i guarentee you he is going to do the same to me....and im sure i would come to the same conclusion you would...nothing against argentina , but, im not a fan of tango , or the culture there, i have no desire to go there unless business calls hard....

Here in the United States the BBC News has been covering Robert Mugabe’s land redistribution in Zimbabwe for many years. It is a case study of how to go from agriculture self-sufficiency to complete collapse in agriculture resulting in mass starvation and famine in Zimbabwe.

We already have a mess in Brazil caused by the Brazilian land distribution in the Amazons because of the land distribution in the 1960’s and 1970’s.

We have two actual examples showing how land distribution to peasants can be catastrophic in Brazil and also in Zimbabwe.

The Mugabe government expropriated the white farmers that had been farming in Zimbabwe for generations, and Zimbabwe was self-sufficient in food production.

After the Mugabe expropriated the farming land all over Zimbabwe and distributed it to the peasants they found out that they did not know how to farm and Zimbabwe had a complete collapse in agriculture resulting in mass starvation.


*****


The results of the post-2000 land reform have been disastrous for the economy of Zimbabwe. Prior to land redistribution, land-owning farmers, mostly white, had large tracts of land and utilized economies of scale to raise capital, borrow money when necessary, and purchase modern mechanized farm equipment to increase productivity on their land. As the primary beneficiaries of the land reform were members of the Government and their families, despite the fact that most had no experience in running a farm, the drop in total farm output has been tremendous and produced widespread claims by aid agencies of starvation and famine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...n_Zimbabwe


********


But if the MST still wants to get some land for its people, then they should read the following article, since according to the author there is plenty of land available to be grabbed in Paraguay, Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador.

Is Brazil Creating Its Own "Backyard"?
Raúl Zibechi | February 3, 2009
http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5836


*********


“Brazil Emerges as a Military Power”
Raúl Zibechi | October 14, 2009
http://americas.irc-online.org/am/6494


.

Are you in all seriousness suggesting that Brazil's PIN, PROTERRA, INCRA and the eventual government abandonment of these folks and that Mugabe's corruption are examples why land reform won't work?

Are you serious?

Do you know what a straw arguement is?

You are comparing apples with peanuts. That fraudulent effort by the Military government in 1971 and the realities of today are two very different things. First of all, the objectives of the military government were NOT land reform, they were to put some people, any people in the Amazons, as long as they were Brazilians, to protect it from being taken by other peoples. They were not given 'farm land', they were given jungle that had to be deforested, planted and reaped (a minimum effor of about two years).

Without a structure such as the current MST, those few families could never provide nor build the infrastructure needed to develop a successful farm nor have the capital to survive until that humongous task of reaping could be achieved.

If you want an example of what government support of land reform is you can just look at the United States and the Oklahoma territory. The United States realized that industrial development is achieved with people at work and did not invest and subsidize huge land ownership (like the military government did in 1971) but our country had the "land rush" and gave the land away to families. All support was given to these hundreds of thousands of farmers and they became the backbone of the American economy until NATURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT enabled them to enter other industries that developed partially because we did not have MILLIONS of unemployed people favela-izing our cities.

Your view on Brazil's economic model is just a repeat of the military government. Brazil used to have a 70% - 30% ratio of people who lived in the rural areas and people who live in the cities. Now, it's the reverse, about 70% live in the cities and 30% live in rural areas. But this was NOT DUE TO THE NATURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF YOUR CITIES. It was due to your unequal land reform and people being being driven to the cities in numbers almost unprecedented.

Any economic model for Brazil has to be wholistic and sensible and take into account existing social problems.

Nearly everything I read from Brazilians on how to deal with existing social problems involves some form of repression...more police, more jails, more executions, more tsk-tsking, more people moving to Europe and LA.

What you know about Zimbabwe is almost racist. Do you believe that it was some "white know-how" that was running those farms. Many of those successful farms were managed by Africans, decisions made by Africans.

The problem was that Mugabe took the land from one group of thieves (those whites stole that land from Africans...not centuries ago...but in the 30's and 40's) and just gave it to another group of thieves.

That is not land reform. You should know that and to use it as an example or model of land reform is disingenious.

Use the Oklahoma territories.

On one hand, your are right, large mechanized farms are more efficient and have their place in an evenly economically developed society.

During the middle ages, serfs were able to leave the farms because horses and a different form of farming freed them from serfdom BUT the results of the Crusades also had opened up trade, developed a merchant class and created another form of capitalist interchange that absorbed the STEADY FLOW of these serfs, stimulating the creation of trade guilds to teach the new crafting skills needed in the cities.

Not a tidal wave of serfs....a steady flow.

MST has to realize that land reform is not the 'forever' nirvana of solutions. And it a mixed economic society such as Brazil (part first world, part third world) it is difficult to go back to a family farm agrarian concept. (even though 'family farm' is not MST's model). Eventually, Brazil will be dominated by efficient mechanized farms. Hopefully MST will achieve it's goal and these farms (not the current ones that exist) will develop as a result of a strong INTERNAL market and not primarily as a result of exports.

Land reform in Brazil can create farms that compete with the larger farms (particulary since so many of them are turning to soybeans, which require much, much land to generate a profit).


And so, in my opinion, Brazil's problems and unequal distribution of income are of the magnitude that the country might need to go back to the past...old-fashioned land reform...to get to the future.

Thank you for giving Ricardo an answer before I got a chance to rip into him. As I said before some Brasilians do not know their country and they can only see black and white pictures. They are blind to pictures of colour.

I hope Ricardo now understand what LAND REFORM is and what it is not.

Part 1 of 4


Adrianerik: If you want an example of what government support of land reform is you can just look at the United States and the Oklahoma territory. The United States realized that industrial development is achieved with people at work and did not invest and subsidize huge land ownership (like the military government did in 1971) but our country had the "land rush" and gave the land away to families. All support was given to these hundreds of thousands of farmers and they became the backbone of the American economy…


******


Ricardo: I know the history of agriculture in the United States and its impact on the US economy in the last 100 years and the number of people who worked in agriculture or their living were in some form associated with agriculture and the impact on the US economy – 100 years ago about 85 percent of economic activity in the US was related in some form to agriculture, and today it is about 3 percent.

I know that The Guest and Adrianerik are looking to the past, and both of you want to turn the clock back to a time long gone, it sounds very romantic and a noble idea that you guys are trying to solve the problem of millions of destitute people in Brazil by getting them a little piece of land for them to get their survival and become self-sufficient. In the surface it looks that you can replicate land reform of the past to solve the problems of the members of the MST in Brazil.

It is a waste of time what you guys are trying to do on this day and age, but be my guest and continue on your futile quest - I guarantee that you guys are going nowhere fast, because of the dynamics that underline global agriculture today, and in the coming decades.

First, I like to suggest that you guys read my 4-part article the portion of the article where I gave a detail analysis about freshwater and its impact on agriculture and the global trends that are underway related to that area.

Brazzil Magazine – October 2007 - "The Smartest Thing China Could Do Right Now: Invest US$ 200 Billion in Brazil" - Written by Ricardo C. Amaral

…The final conclusion is: It's imperative that China move forward in an aggressive fashion and implement with Brazil the plan described in this four-part series of articles. And China should look at it as a matter of national security and future survival.

Monday, 01 October 2007 - Part 1 of 4
http://www.brazzil.com/compone.../9977.html

Friday, 05 October 2007 - Part 2 of 4
http://www.brazzil.com/compone.../9979.html

Thursday, 11 October 2007 - Part 3 of 4
http://www.brazzil.com/compone.../9983.html

Tuesday, 16 October 2007 - Part 4 of 4
http://www.brazzil.com/compone.../9985.html


*****


Second, quoting from the material below: “In 1940, there were 6 million farms averaging 67 hectares each. By the late 1990s, there were only about 2.2 million farms averaging 190 hectares in size. During roughly this same period, farm employment declined dramatically -- from 12.5 million in 1930 to 1.2 million in the 1990s -- even as the total U.S. population more than doubled. In 1900, half of the labor force were farmers, but by the end of the century only 2 percent worked on farms. And nearly 60 percent of the remaining farmers at the end of the century worked only part-time on farms; they held other, non-farm jobs to supplement their farm income.”

In 2009 only 1.8 percent worked on farms, and the number of farmers continue to decline in the USA year after year.

As the new century gets underway, technological development and market integration remain forces of change, and their influence, along with that of consumers, appears likely to continue. The structure of farming continues to move toward fewer, larger operations producing the bulk of farm commodities, complemented by a growing number of smaller farms earning most of their income from off-farm sources, all increasingly affected by global events.


*****


Third, we can’t look to the past and try to replicate it in the future. The only thing we can do in the future is adapt to the new dynamics and the new ballgame of the 21st century and we need to take in consideration the size of population, the availability of freshwater in agriculture areas, the impact of global warming, and the massive changes in agriculture policies around the world.

It is too late to turn the clock back in Brazil regarding agricultural land reform. We can’t turn Brazil into another Zimbabwe, and the world can’t afford to have Brazil trying an experiment regarding agriculture just because there is a group called MST that has decided that Brazil should have agrarian reform today that was supposed to have happened 100 years ago in another age and under completely different global circumstances.

.

Part 2 of 4


World Population

Year

1900 = 1.6 billion people

1950 = 2.5 billion people

2000 = 6 billion people

2011 = 7 billion people

2024 = 8 billion people

Note: The total global population is growing by 78 million people per year.


United States

1900 = 76 million people

1950 = 151 million people

2000 = 275 million people

2011 = 313 million people


Brazil

1900 = 17 million people

1950 = 51 million people

2000 = 185 million people

2011 = 200 million people


************


American farmers approached the 21st century with some of the same problems they encountered during the 20th century. The most important of these continued to be overproduction. As has been true since the nation's founding, continuing improvements in farm machinery, better seeds, better fertilizers, more irrigation, and effective pest control have made farmers more and more successful in what they do (except for making money). And while farmers generally have favored holding down overall crop output to shore up prices, they have balked at cutting their own production.

Just as an industrial enterprise might seek to boost profits by becoming bigger and more efficient, many American farms have gotten larger and larger and have consolidated their operations to become leaner as well. In fact, American agriculture increasingly has become an "agribusiness," a term created to reflect the big, corporate nature of many farm enterprises in the modern U.S. economy. Agribusiness includes a variety of farm businesses and structures, from small, one-family corporations to huge conglomerates or multinational firms that own large tracts of land or that produce goods and materials used by farmers.

The advent of agribusiness in the late 20th century has meant fewer but much larger farms. Sometimes owned by absentee stockholders, these corporate farms use more machinery and far fewer farm hands. In 1940, there were 6 million farms averaging 67 hectares each. By the late 1990s, there were only about 2.2 million farms averaging 190 hectares in size. During roughly this same period, farm employment declined dramatically -- from 12.5 million in 1930 to 1.2 million in the 1990s -- even as the total U.S. population more than doubled. In 1900, half of the labor force were farmers, but by the end of the century only 2 percent worked on farms. And nearly 60 percent of the remaining farmers at the end of the century worked only part-time on farms; they held other, non-farm jobs to supplement their farm income. The high cost of capital investment -- in land and equipment -- makes entry into full-time farming extremely difficult for most persons.

As these numbers demonstrate, the American "family farm" -- rooted firmly in the nation's history and celebrated in the myth of the sturdy yeoman -- faces powerful economic challenges. Urban and suburban Americans continue to rhapsodize about the neat barns and cultivated fields of the traditional rural landscape, but it remains uncertain whether they will be willing to pay the price -- either in higher food prices or government subsidies to farmers -- of preserving the family farm.

Source:
http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/oecon/chap8.htm


****************


American agriculture

American agriculture and rural life underwent a tremendous transformation in the 20th century. Early 20th century agriculture was labor intensive, and it took place on a large number of small, diversified farms in rural areas where more than half of the U.S. population lived. These farms employed close to half of the U.S. workforce, along with 22 million work animals, and produced an average of five different commodities. The agricultural sector of the 21st century, on the other hand, is concentrated on a small number of large, specialized farms in rural areas where less than a fourth of the U.S. population lives. These highly productive and mechanized farms employ a tiny share of U.S. workers and use 5 million tractors in place of the horses and mules of earlier days.

As a result of this transformation, U.S. agriculture has become increasingly efficient and has contributed to the overall growth of the U.S. economy. Output from U.S. farms has grown dramatically, allowing consumers to spend an increasingly smaller portion of their income on food and freeing a large share of the population to enter nonfarm occupations that have supported economic growth and development. As a part of the transformation spurred by technological innovation and changing market conditions, production agriculture has become a smaller player in the national and rural economies. While the more broadly defined food and agriculture sector continues to play a strong role in the national economy, farming has progressively contributed a smaller share of gross domestic product (GDP) and employed a smaller share of the labor force over the course of the century

.

Part 3 of 4


Farming’s changing role in the Nation’s economy

Year - 1900
41 percent of workforce employed in agriculture

1930
21.5 percent of workforce employed in agriculture;
Agricultural GDP as a share of total GDP, 7.7 percent

1945
16 percent of the total labor force employed in agriculture;
Agricultural GDP as a share of total GDP, 6.8 percent

1970
4 percent of employed labor force worked in agriculture;
Agricultural GDP as a share of total GDP, 2.3 percent

2000/02
1.9 percent of employed labor force worked in agriculture (2000); Agricultural GDP as a share of total GDP (2002), 0.7 percent

Source: Compiled by Economic Research Service, USDA. Share of workforce employed in agriculture, for 1900-1970, Historical Statistics of the United States; for 2000, calculated using data from Census of Population; agricultural GDP as part of total GDP, calculated using data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.


The altered role of farming in the overall economy reflects changes at the farm and farm household level. Since 1900, the number of farms has fallen by 63 percent, while the average farm size has risen 67 percent (see fig. 3).Farm operations have become increasingly specialized as well (see fig. 4)—from an average of about five commodities per farm in 1900 to about one per farm in 2000—reflecting the production and marketing efficiencies gained by concentration on fewer commodities, as well as the effects of farm price and income policies that have reduced the risk of depending on returns from only one or a few crops. All of this has taken place with almost no variation in the amount of land being farmed.

Farm households have adapted as dramatic increases in productivity have reduced the need for household labor on the farm, and as alternative employment opportunities have developed in nearby rural and metro economies. Although measures of off-farm work and income have varied over the century, making comparisons over time difficult, about a third of farm operators worked off the farm for at least 100 days in 1930.


Off-farm income/work

Year - 1930
30 percent of farmers worked off farm for an average of 100 days

1945
27 percent of farmers worked off farm

1970
54 percent of households had off-farm income

2002
93 percent of households had off-farm income

Source: Compiled by Economic Research Service, USDA, using data from Census of Agriculture and Census of the United States.


Longrun Forces Behind the Changes

As with the rest of the U.S. economy, the transformation in American agriculture and rural life over the last century has been driven by longrun economic developments, as well as periods of economic crisis. Among the most influential trends: technological development, the rise of consumer influence in agricultural production, and the increasing integration of American farming into national and global markets.

.

Part 4 of 4


Conclusion

Overall, farmers found ways to adapt to the changes of the last century. Those who remained in agriculture increased their efficiency by expanding and specializing their operations to take advantage of economies of scale, or by identifying niche markets to maintain profitability. Others moved out of farming and into other enterprises or occupations, or combined farming with off-farm work, with other family members tapping different sources of income. In some cases, farming has become a secondary occupation, providing a preferred lifestyle rather than a primary source of income.

Certainly, not all adjustments have been voluntary or preferred, and regional differences have affected the outcomes. Areas closer to centers of economic growth or to attractive natural amenities have benefited, while areas far from urban development and natural amenities, and areas of persistent poverty—associated with higher concentrations of racial and ethnic minorities—in most cases have not.

Farm policies have never fundamentally altered the trajectory of change, but they have in some cases affected its pace. For example, the institutionalization of what began as emergency income support in the 1930s has likely slowed the movement of labor out of the farm sector. In other cases, policies have spurred change—for example, the risk-reduction effects of price supports and the planting rigidities imposed by supply controls encouraged specialization.

As the new century gets underway, technological development and market integration remain forces of change, and their influence, along with that of consumers, appears likely to continue. The structure of farming continues to move toward fewer, larger operations producing the bulk of farm commodities, complemented by a growing number of smaller farms earning most of their income from off-farm sources, all increasingly affected by global events. Although many details of U.S. farm programs have changed over the last 40 years in response to new economic and political circumstances, two key features of commodity programs—commodity specificity and focus on income support—have remained constant. Today, cash receipts for supported commodities (wheat, feed grains, rice cotton, oilseeds, dairy, and sugar) account for only 34 percent of total farm cash receipts. Direct government payments for income support reach only about 500,000 farms (around 25 percent of all farms).

http://www.ers.usda.gov/public...tm#changes


.

From the remaining number of farmers in the United States a large number depend on massive US government agricultural subsidies to stay in business.

If the US government had a drastic cut in US government subsidies for agriculture in 2010 then in no time we would have less than 1 percent of people working on farms, and the number of farmers still would continue to decline in the USA year after year.

The American farmer still being further protected and if the US government did not protect the US sugar industry from international competition with tariffs and quotas then the number of farmers in the US would be even lower today.

.

Thank you for the information which you wrote above but none of it is relevant to my initial question to you, "Please explain to us agrarian reform in Zimbabwe," thus I will reframe the question to you.
Please explain to us the difference between agrarian land reform and land thievery in regards to Zimbabwe.

As far as MST is concern, there is a way for Brasil to nullify them and achieve land reform at the same time. By the way, MST do not like my approach because it would make them irrelevant.
If you give a clear answer to the above about Zimbabwe I will tell you how.

TRUE ! very true !

MONSANTO, SYNGENTA, DEERE,CATERPILLAR, ARCHER DANIELS, CARGILL, BUNGE, LOUIS DREYFUS, AND ALSO FORD, GM, SAAB-VOLVO-RENAULT-FIAT- ETC CARS & TRUCKS MAKERS !!!!!!

DID I MISS ONE ? Ohhhh yessssss NESTLE with their 28 Brazilians manufacturing plants !

VIVA BRAZILIANS COMPANIES KNOW HOW AND TECHNOLOGIES !
The World Best....Companies !

CORRECT RICARDO ?

Hmmmmm....hmmmm !!!

Dont forget that "Brazil is now the nation which suffers the greatest inequality, on a subcontinent which, in its turn, experiences the greatest wealth gap"

Ohhhhhh and to You and Ricardo, concerning what was written in the article "Brazil was responsible for 12% of the world's genetically modified crops in 2007."
THANKS TO WHOM ?
MONSANTO, SYNGENTA, ARCHER DANIELS, CARGILL ETC ETC

Foreign seeds companies control 90 % of the brazilian seeds market...if you did not know !

Yesssss... THUS THANKS AGAIN TO THE ABOVE GREAT..."BRAZILIANS"...COMPANIES !


Ohhhh and SYNGENTA announced last year newer much better seedlings for your SUGARCANE ! News also published here on this site.

To make it short : WITHOUT GOOD AND ADVANCED INPUTS FROM FOREIGNERS...BRAZIL WOULD STILL BE LIKE THE 1900s TODAY !!!!!!!!


SAD TRUTH !

I'll have to agree more with Ricardo on this one Adrian.

Oklahoma territory was largely Indian land. The whole of the United States actually. The Midwest (or Middle West) to the West Coast was developed in small farmer by the U.S. Government granting land rights to white natives and European immigrants if they would colonize the land they purchased from the U.S. Government and guard it with guns from the Indians.

The fact is agriculture is going to be held by a small few hands in the 21st century. Looking at U.S. agriculture in the 1800's is of little use to the Brazilians today.

Most developed nations have a tiny percentage of their population employed in agriculture. In the 1800's most Americans were employed in the agri-business - today the picture is entirely opposite.

As unattractive and unhealthy as the favelas can be, it is preferable I believe, that Brazil bite the bullet in inequality to some extent, if the trajectory of their economic growth and efficiency is toward the positive. Better that than model Ethiopia, where a large if not majority of the population is employed in agriculture, and wealth distribution is more equal.

Ricardo: Reply to The Guest

We both know what happened in Zimbabwe – the complete government mismanagement of everything that resulted in hyperinflation and economic chaos.

I am not going to fall on your trap and discuss the racial role and impact on that fiasco.


*****


Ricardo: Reply to Adrianerik and The Guest

The trends in agriculture will be similar in Brazil to what has happened in the agriculture area in the United States – more efficiency and declining number of people to produce growing numbers of agriculture products. It will be done with high-tech and not with the labor of poor peasants.

But I have a solution for MST in Brazil that can be more productive on the long run – if this group is really serious about helping the poor Brazilian peasants on their pursuit of getting a little piece of land to do some farming and support their families.

The plan is really simple and needs only 2 major parts to be implemented for the MST to help thousands of their members achieve their goals.

Here is what the MST needs to do:


1) Plan Part 1

Work with the Brazilian government and help create a new Brazilian government program to finance the purchase of new lands on behalf of these new farmers. Remember this is a loan that will be repaid by the peasant with the results of his labor on this new land.

By the way, these new farms will be bought in Uruguay, Peru, Paraguay, Ecuador, and Bolivia.


2) Plan Part 2

The Brazilian government makes an agreement with the government of these 5 countries that they will not expropriate the land of these Brazilian farmers when these farms are successful and productive.

Brazilian farmers have been very successful in Uruguay, Paraguay, and Bolivia for a number of years, and they became a major resource for these countries bringing new revenues to these countries and turning unproductive lands into very successful new farming operations.

Brazilian farmers did just that in Bolivia, and about 2 years ago when the government of Bolivia nationalized the Petrobras assets in Bolivia, at that same time the Bolivian government were thinking of expropriating about $ 1 billion dollars worth of these Brazilian farmers that had created many very successful businesses in Bolivia in the area of agriculture.

That strategy would be a win/win situation not only for the Brazilian sem-terra, but also for these countries that are going to profit from all these new agriculture activity on their countries.


*****


If you guys don’t understand what I trying to say then read again the following article:

But if the MST still wants to get some land for its people, then they should read the following article, since according to the author there is plenty of land available to be grabbed in Paraguay, Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador.

Is Brazil Creating Its Own "Backyard"?
Raúl Zibechi | February 3, 2009
http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5836


.

You are very funny, Amaral. Unfortunately, coming out of an African American prespective, where people have died for justice, I could never accept that paradigm for justice in Brazilian society.

(Not to sound arrogant...I am American...so it really does not matter whether I can accept it or not). (actually that's not true...but that's another thread).

To paraphrase the Irish....BRAZIL FOR THE BRAZILIANS!

I don't have the time to get into all of your points....just to say...you are looking at the outcome of modern agrarian societies and not the PROCESS by which they arrived to this outcome.

Have you ever got into a discussion about what is "efficient" and what is "effective"? In my MBA program, it was a hot topic, especially in the economic courses.

You know, it's Friday night. I'll come back to this later.

Go Phillies!

Ricardo: Adrianerik, now that you have identified yourself as an African American I understand that you have a different perspective than I do when you look at most subjects.

I am not going to start sanitizing my opinions to please everybody – If you have been reading my articles then you know that I am not that kind of writer.

Before you arrive to any conclusions about my writing I hope you will take the time and read the following article that I wrote in June 2003:

Brazzil Magazine - June 2003 - “Brazil and the Angolan Connection”
Written by Ricardo C. Amaral

http://www.brazzillog.com/2003...3jun03.htm


*********


Adrianerik: you are looking at the outcome of modern agrarian societies and not the PROCESS by which they arrived to this outcome.

Have you ever got into a discussion about what is "efficient" and what is "effective"? In my MBA program, it was a hot topic, especially in the economic courses.


*********


Ricardo: It does not matter what was the process used to arrive to the point where we are standing today.

Today we have a different set of conditions affecting global agriculture and there’s no turning back.

A few months ago I saw an hour program on CNBC showing the migration of American farmers to Brazil. They showed this American fellow who is raising hedge fund money and investing in very large soybean farms in Brazil, and how many of his friends started doing the same thing.

The program also showed the farm of his father here in the United States (I forgot from which state) and he was comparing notes with his father how his farm in Brazil was a lot more profitable than his father’s farm in the United States.

That program implied that today there is a lot of hedge fund money being invested in agriculture in Brazil. And these farms are operated with all kinds of state-of-the-art technology.

You should read my 4-part article about China investing $ 200 billion dollars in Brazil since in that article I gave detailed information about agriculture in Brazil.

Today governments from around the world are reassessing their positions regarding their agriculture policies and I did explain why on that article.

You said: “Have you ever got into a discussion about what is "efficient" and what is "effective"? In my MBA program, it was a hot topic, especially in the economic courses.”

It is one thing to have that discussion in a classroom environment, but it is another thing when you need to adopt long term policies that has to take in consideration 100 variables including globalization, population growth, freshwater scarcity, droughts, food shortages, inflation, market manipulators, greed, tariffs and quotas, exploitation, insurance, land expropriations by certain governments, government subsidies, government regulations, all kinds of weather catastrophes, incompetence in farming know-how by some farmers, agricultural diseases, local and international competition, not enough capital to keep the business healthy, constant changing market conditions on a very dynamic world, and so on….

As you said: “Have you ever got into a discussion about what is "efficient" and what is "effective"?”

Based on what?

I worked for many years as controller for a number of international trading companies including Mesbla Trading here in New Jersey; we did a lot of business between Brazil and Angola from our office, and each contract was for about $ 10 million dollars of sugar, powder milk, and other commodities. We used to bring millions of dollars of shrimp from Brazil (usually we had about $ 20 million dollars of inventory in warehouses around New York City), we also brought a lot of corn beef from Argentina, and we had a large inventory of beef from Australia in the millions of US dollars. Mesbla Trading was a small international trading company we had annual sales of about US$ 80 million dollars.

We also brought bottled water from Brazil, some juices, corn, and tomato paste.

I also got involved in selling silos to farmers in Brazil plus all other kinds of farming equipment to keep corn, soybean and other agricultural products from going bad. You know these gigantic silos that you see on farms around the United States.

At that time I had to study in detail everything that affected the entire farming system in Brazil including the transportation systems and so on…

When I am giving my opinion is not coming from a classroom discussion, it is coming from many years of actual experience regarding that field.

.

"I am not going to fall on your trap and discuss the racial role and impact on that fiasco."

You are jumping to conclusions with the above statement Ricardo, but the first part of your answer was correct; however, not in regards to land reform. There was no land reform thus the only thing that was mismanaged was the thievery. It was thievery Ricardo not land reform.

In regards to land reform in Brasil, you think that Brasil should resolve this problem by shipping its citizens to other countries in the region. Adrianerik was correct. You are funny. I wont even waste my time commenting on what you wrote because if you really think your solution is a good one you do not really know your country and understand MST.

At least I know a lot, not everything, about Brasil and most importantly understand MST. I also know MST fear implementation of the type of land reform that I would suggest since it would completely nullify them, making them totally irrelevant.

On the other hand, the rich land grabbers within Brasil will not like it either because they also will have to finally operate within clear enforceable rules. Maybe that is the reason why no such laws exist in Brasil today.

You made many, many assumptions in your post Amaral and then you ran with it. I won't go into listing my life here but school for me was a long, long time ago...a lot of successful life ago.

That 'discussion' (efficiency vs effective) takes place in every top level of any Fortune 500 firm (actually any firm, if they expect to stay competitive).

I won't list the ones that, over the decade, I've been involved with.

Also a note: there are nearly 50 million African Americans of all views and diverse educational levels.

Which (reductionist) category did you put me in?

Should I understand your opinions because you are "white" or because you, Amaral, present logically presented ideas?

Which 'white' are you?

Hmmmm.....

Which (reductionist) category shall I put you in?

And...it DOES matter the process by which a country arrives to its current profile of land distribution.

For instance, you can't steal 70% of the land in Zimbabwe and then 50 years later, stare into the face of the actual people you stole it from and say "Forget about it...go to Peru or something...you should be happy...just look at what we did with the land we stole".

Later, Amaral. We'll need to talk about the markets of these "mechanized" farms and exactly why they are "profiting" versus the hundreds of thousands (actually much more than that) of smaller farms that still serve mostly the internal market.

Cotton, soy, coffee. In Brazil isn't that like a banker's business? (bank managers aren't considered true businesspeople by many CEOs since any idiot can lend money at a higher percentage than they buy it from the Feds).

So, the more land, the more profits. (I'm really curious of that 'American farmer' was comparing equal acreage or comparing his daddy's profits from 2000 acres to the average of 20,000 that 'investors' are buying in Brazil).

Yes, commodity markets are dangerous, especially in a global context and IF these mechanized farms turn their focus to Brazil's internal market that would pose a challenge for any MST style initiatives.

But the internal market is NOT where the big money is...is it?

Okay....today is saturday. I don't really like baseball but it is the Philadelphia Phillies against the New York Yankees. Blue Collar versus the Mechanized Hedge Fund Snot Noses.

Gotta get my bar-b-cue and Mountain Dew soda ready.

tchau

i thought you were in bahia...

yeah, i used to root for the chciago white sox, then i got smart and moved to new york and celibrated many pennents and world series....thank god for ricky henderson, that was a fund era to watch the yankees

Later, Amaral.

Dont take too long.

Also a note: there are nearly 50 million African Americans of all views and diverse educational levels.

Thats a breaking news, at least for me!

BTW, how is the "booklet" coming along?

P.S: My apologies for interfering.

In the States for a book and arts festival on the 13, 14, 15th. (www.octobergallery.com).

Will return on the 15th by way of Manaus (because I do NOT like making connections out of Sao Paulo).

Connections through Rio are fine but I don't like to be confused with the "sex tourists" who seem to make up 80% of the line at customs.

(that's not fair, is it? how do I know what the majority of those men are up to?)

My bad.

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

the crowd from miami to salvador can have a lot of men..

i wish some one could give me some insight to the african american community living in bahia...is it close knit ? are there a lot of people? are they all in one comminity or spread out?

how do you deal with heat and dengue?

i wish some one could give me some insight to the african american community living in bahia.

A SUGGESTION:Ask DnBaiacu, when he appears the next time in the sister magazine.In case you are not aware yet, he is an Afro-American-Brasilian. Or I will ask him, if you feel "constrangido"

but if dnb has any insight to that dynamic, i welcome it....it has been discussed but never with any detail...

but you know, after 4 days like this, its hard to leave here...you know how we roll

If you interview 10 African Americans in Bahia you will more than likely find ten different 'communities'.

We don't cluster together in Bahia. There are all ages, educational levels and motives for being in Brazil/Bahia.

Capoieristas! Dancers! Real Estate Investors! Married with family! Playboys! Playgirls! Teachers! Activists! Writers! Ivy League PhDs with fellowships! Ages from the 20's to the 60's.

I can only speak for Bahia, but most who live here are extremely aware and knowledgeable of Brazilian culture, therefore they move very easily within their own Brazilian circles.

It is very infrequent that they run into each other.

And if they did, they wouldn't know each other. They are, after all, African Americans.

The 'short timers', who come for carnaval or come for a few weeks tend to cluster together (as is common for any group of tourists in unfamiliar terrain)

living there you are going to have a better insight.....

sometimes "americans" cluster....i dont , and dont look to. if it happens naturaly ill hang with some americans, but, i dont go out of my way

im more than willing to acknowledge if he does something good like that..

too bad he couldnt be doing more things like that and give up his meglomaniac ambitions.....he has to cut fidel loose

Why should he?

A question: Do you see the Stalinist International Communism the same as the communism of Vietnam, Nicaragua, Cuba, et al? Do you think that, inherent in the communism of these emerging countries is world domination?

Second question: who were the leaders of the non-aligned movement - the attempt to not be dominated by the Capitalists nor the Communists?

even though you havent answered the ones i asked about the reports from various agencies of chavez and his dealing with farc and how farc is dealing with huge drug gangs in brazil....

no , of course i dont think all so called communist countries are the same.

maybe you misunderstood when i say that many of these people i have been talking about are reading off the soviet union propaganda page. that doesnt mean they are supporting stalinism or marxist lennonism (but hugo has been pretty blatent in some of his afiliations with marxist teachings). but what they did do was, in their hate for the united states, they have picked up this flawed failed broken into little peices with the fall of the soviet union, line of criticism of the united states , put together by the top minds in the soviet union, and dusted it off and have used it for their own tirade against the usa, painting everything the usa has done as the evil and the root cause of what is wrong in the world now...including the fundimental punk bitch terrorist islamists who have decided to beleive in 21 virgins to go into crowded markets of their own peopel and suicice bomb themselves and their own women and children....happening right now quite frequently in pakistan...that one armed hooked mother f**ker from britain just ratteled off this page like he was reading it word for word "...from the atom bombs in japan to korea, to vietnam, to bosnia etc etc" these were all complex situations, any one just breaking it down to just american imperialism and aggresion is seriously mis informed or naive or has an agenda...

so communism ? why isnt china rattling off the horrible things the usa has done and blame it for all the wrongs in the world and say capatilism is so bad ?

you see , that is the smoke signal of who really is talking bulls**t...hiding behind a soviet union propaganda page and in south america , covered with fidels snot...railing against the evils of capatilism (hyper capatalism , yes, is horrible, but capatalism is the way of the world markets), ranting the cia is hiding behind every rock, and calling the usa imperialist when che and fidel and hugo are every bit as much imperialist as the usa, with the dictionaly definition being to overtly or covertly attempt to alter the soverenty of another nation...

so please dont paint me as fearful of a soviet style communism taking over south america

before i talk about nam, let me say, i have over and over pointed out things about usa policies that i thought were wrong and some things close to inexcusable. i have made that clear, and i have said every one is dirty. what is missing from your arguments , and ,people who come from a similar line of thinking, is no ackowledgement of how dirty the other side was and is.if we cant look at the whole truth of all these situations, it becomes hypocritical and preposterous

nam countries...im no expert...was started with leaders like tito (?), nasser and other countries who didnt want to be aligned with the cold war. i would support anything that would help these countries to help the peole and try to keep peace. they tried to make an organisation of countries non aligned with the cold war.....really kind of funny with cuba, syria and north korrea...

and their quest for peace was frought with internal conflicts with iraq and iran, pakistan and india, and cuba supported the soviet invasion of afghanistan as did other eastern bloc countries, so really, a lot of lofty aspiratons but plenty of hypocracies and agendas

many nam governments were pure dictatorships repressing the bejesus out of their people, the people dont represent nam, the goevernments do and many arnt democratic

some nam governments think its fun to go on mass killing spree while babbling about neo colonialism and zionism

but,if they can help people and keep peace in certain conflicts, then great for those situations, but bow down to them as the ideal examples? no thanks

castro? cmon adrian, why dont you just come clean with your political leanings, ive trid to be pretty transparent about mine. but you are trying to paint me into some freaked out fearful anti communist, who supports the elite, which i am not...i just smell the bulls**t and point it out...too bad you wont ackowledge the bulls**t...and south america is one hell of a place to be now to feel the political dynamics going on. it has forced me to be hyper aware and vigilant to be informed and study things i never would have if i stayed in the states

and i say leaders who wallow in this bulls**t, arnt helping their countries...they are only leading them into more suffering

i like what lula is doing (comon ch c no groaning now)and as far as the usa is concerned in south america, i would never say it is the best freind, but it sure aint the worst enemy

im just here in the peanut gallery, a bleacher bum venting my mouth off at things i want to rail away at that i have had to suck in a lot

this is the perfect place to let it out, i mean what the hell, ive had to see my son come home from school having been taught some real bulls**t about the world and ive had to educate him correctly. i didnt go over to those scholls raise holly hell,im coming in here and doing it

Okayyyyyy...asp.

On another thread I suggested that you read books. I repeat that.

(you actually link fundamentalist islamicists with SOVIET PROPAGANDA)

sheeesh!

yeah, i said these sob's are picking up this flawed peice of failed s**t as a propaganda against the usa

why is that so hard to beleive? its already proven they keep a close watch on cnn and internet news to find things to throw up on their sick messages to the world...

adrian, ive brought in a lot of information, most of it beyond a shadow of a doubt, proven fact (like fernando beira mar caught directly with farc, or do you deny that ? or do you know who fernando beira mar is?). and you havent addressed one item....

you just throw back generalised dismissals and mischaractorizations of my point of veiw....we are just going to have to agree to disagree because you have in no way convinced me

books ? especialy about things i havent lived through, they can be invaluable

but, real time experiances and living in places and developing my own opinion based on those experiances? i trust my instinct, experiance and nose more than a book written on the subject that disagrees with my experiance...you are an author, is there any doubt why you would try to champion books over any other type of information ?

brazil has a plethora of books about what happened in the cold war, the majority dont give the full story by any means, they are one sided points of veiw of what happened....

none of them would mention the truth of what i saw on a casual news report interveiw on one of those brazilian news only channals that interveiwed a former kgb top ranking agent who said that the kgb had spies placed in the military , congress, colleges and media in brazil during the cold war....this wasnt meant to be some kind of slant in favor of the usa, it was a very casual matter of fact interview...yet extremly revealing since most information coming out in brazil never addressed these kinds of facts, they only criticize the usa for having cia in brazil and having ships all ready to support the military dictatorship, who never needed them anyway, and coming to the conclusion that the usa was to blame for the whole thing

thank god i saw that measly tv report, it was incredibly revealing as to the real truth that was going down at that time...are you going to tell me that was insignificant and meaningless ? it certainly was counter to any number of books written by former guerillas trained in cuba or china or the soviet union and were captured , tortured and exiled...

"torturua nunca mais.." great book about the realities of the horrible torture that went on back then...how it should never be allowed to happen again.....well where is the book that ackowledges that torture is happening all the time in brazil right now? where is the book that expresse that? it isnt out, i can only base that observation on the frequent reports i see on tv , facts that verify it exists...where is the outrage of the people who wrote that book and support that book? their voices are deafeningly silent...books dont tell the whole story by any means...

i suggest you let go of some of your idealised thinking on south america history , wake up and try to inform yourself of the whole truth and hypocracies of what is going down here in south america

which gives some insight as to the torture that still exists

but it is on going with very little outrage by the people who scream about torture in the cold war in brazil

I propose not to wait until you get enough money to order different goods! You should just get the business loans or financial loan and feel yourself free