Brazzil

Buarque explains that Ireland preferred education first and then roads buildings to show what Brazil should have done !
The problem is that Brazil did not invest neither in roads, nor in railways. And not more in education, housings, healthcare, sanitation.

Knowing that Brazil had and still has one of the world highest tax rates, the governments should have been relatively rich...by definition.
Saying it is a big country is incorrect in the sense that it has also a large population.

Then the basic question never answered so far by the politicians and governments is simple :
With such a high taxation, where did the money go ?
A partial answer is foreign debts, yes but then what did you do with that money too, because you got that money...by definition..

The reality is very simple :
- tax collections were and still are poor. Tax evasion is the norm.
- the country was really mismanaged.
- some of the money was and is still stolen through thousands and thousands of corruptions, red tape, kickbacks for every single project developed.

Most of that stolen money went in the pockets of your existing minority elite, this elite consisting also of your politicians, are quite wealthy by every standard.
- The civil servants
have a high salary and a very high pension, paid by the government budget,

In conclusion if someone receives 100 and spends :
- 20 (government maintenace budget)
- 15 (corruption, red tape, kickbacks, over billings at all levels)
- 20 ( pensions for government and civil servants )
- 20 (10 for reimbursments of debts and 10 for interests)
- 15 (re-transfer to states - and gaining politicial support)

The remaining balance is only 10, for education, housing, infrastructure, poverty, social inclusion..

How can then investments be made...with just 10 out of 100 ?????

It is then not without reason that Brazil is ranked as having one of the world most wealth inequality !

It is quite strange that an EX senator, Ex governor, EX minister is writing such an article, because he is one of those that took, stole and burned the government budgets, leaving the country population with very little.

If one takes Ireland as an example, he is right because they did a super job in 20 years. But to analyze how they did it should also be looked in how the government budgets are allocated.

For obvious reasons, no one in Brazil will ever do that analysis and publish it ! smile

And very one can guess why !

The above poster stated that right. Every money that enters into state hands go wasted. The problem is not what politicians do with the money. The problem is the politicians and the state themselves.

Take a look at this link: http://www.eduvinet.de/eduvinet/irl002.htm
It says the primary schools in Ireland ARE NOT STATE SCHOOLS AS WELL AS MOST SECONDARY SCHOOLS. Well, that gives us a lot of tips on how they did to make their country advance. Take a look at Brazil. We even have quotas to overcome the disparity between privately owned schools and government schools! In the United States, the government schools are also considered to be a disaster in many aspects, having a number of failures such as the "Whole Language System" in California. Ireland probably didn't develop the roads because their laws made it difficult for private individuals to build roads and charge users for the facility they've created. And their educational system worked because of the contrary reason.

Quite simply, education is a too important matter to be left in the hands of the state. We can see many excellent students, the best in the country who can pass hard vestibulares, graduates from good "universidades federais" who have their talent thrown away because they've learned obsolete curriculum in government universities and must learn everything back when they go to market, if they don't get unemployed for several months until getting a job as myself (of course, there is also the problem that the market is all f**ked up by government taxes and regulations, but graduates from private unis tend to get jobs more quickly). Cristovam Buarque is not a solution. He is part of the problem.

We have many brazilians who were successful without much formal education. Lots of soccer players, company managers, directors and owners, masons who are better than engineers, doctors who decide to sell candies because they cannot make a living in their profession, lots of examples. It's common to see people with non-formal education to succeed while others with formal education fail, simply because they are more pragmatic and have better values for business and working. We even have a moron as president and Severino Cavalcanti, who was president of the House of Representatives, also didn't have even an associates degree equivalent. See that I'm not discussing education as a means to get knowledge (there are some individuals who can get that on their own) but formal curriculum education, specifically the brazilian one. Both tend to be taken as synonyms.

We have only two hypothesis here: both the education in Brazil fails miserably and most of it is not relevant or formal education is given an importante that it does not have in the real world. In this case, I think the first hypothesis is the correct one.

For obvious reasons, no one in Brazil will ever do that analysis and publish it ! smile

What do you mean by this phrase ? The Brazilian Government does not make public its operating budget ?

Evidently, not everyone is post-graduate level material but investments in our technical colleges, basic education, universities and also R&D are fundamental for our country. However, we need to start teaching more basic trades to the majority of the people. Technical colleges should be our highest priority. Some people make great scientists, engineers, medical doctors but that type of education should be reserved to individuals with the highest skills, as a general rule; however, I admit, history shows that sometimes that is not the case. Anyway, most of our people need basic skills and that can be offered in good junior level colleges and schools.

It is true that not all well educated people make great entrepreneurs but when you invest in education you are giving to the people power and capability to make better decisions. Again, obviously, not everyone will be successful and this also is valid in Ireland. However, you increase tremendously the chances that more people will make good use of the education they receive.

We should not underplay education; it is the biggest problem we are facing in Brazil, now and ever. Poverty, lack of jobs, crime and other social maladies are result of poor education, poor investments and poor government.

A Brazilian

Saying that is all too beautiful and it has been said in this country for over at least 20 years now. The question is, how should this investment be made? I'm sure no one in the state is able to make a good plan. In the hypothesis that their vision would not be biased by marxist bulls**t, a centralized decision for such a big country would certainly not solve the problem. Education in Brazil, as well as anywhere, must be micromanaged. And for a good micromanagement to work, one must delegate powers to people nearer the problem, nearer the reality and the pupils. The best way to do that, guess what, is through free market, which almost authomatically chooses the best methods for each region while taking the bad methods to be replaced or bankrupted. You doubt it? Then you better remember that ALL capitalists through free market want to attend the whole market. As this is normally not possible for a single company, many others appear to occupy niches, attending nearly the whole market for the lowest prices possible. Of course, many brazilians don't understand such a thing, for we barely have free market environments here.

The Ireland case is an example for this, why not to follow their example, and even more, try to make it broader, in order to achieve even better results? Let's stop with this state-funding-schools bulls**t and do the real work ok?

I did not say that it should not be done in a free market. However, you have to understand that the government must give incentive and investment so the private schools may succeed. Good schools should have all kinds of incentives and sponsorship from the government and from the corporations.

My son (a Brazilian) graduated in the US from a public High School which is considered a very good school nationwide supported with the property taxes (which I pay every year).

If you know Brazil even a little bit then you may realize that you have to carefully monitor schools in Brazil because otherwise they become a bad case of exploitation without giving to the country what it needs most, i.e., quality education. This typical in our country and there is a lot of shameless “wild capitalists”, if you know what I mean.

I am a capitalist myself but not to the point of thinking that the government should be detached from social obligations and leadership. There is a limit for everything and the type of capitalism existent in the US today (where the government is from the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation) is not what most Americans dream.

I don't understand your very concern with Marxism in Brazil. It never worked in Brazil and it never will.

FYI, I'm a brazilian graduated at a government university here. I could see with my own eyes that this kind of unis is run by marxist people and MEC (Culture and Education Ministery) people aren't any better. Sometimes you have to be exposed to extreme situations to realize the truth... and those wild capitalists become tamed by free competition. The problem with education is that it's too politicized, anywhere in the world, even in the U.S. As such, governments have a lot of power to define curricula and provide a number of regulations that make it difficult for new players to come into market, not to mention the constant danger of a new free school opening just in front of a private school and leading it to bankruptcy. That's the right formula to make wild capitalists, for who can survive in such an environment does not find many competitors and yet more important, does not have the danger of getting new competitors in the market.
Want an example of wild capitalists facing low competition? Virtually almost any market in Brazil. Products are too expensive and of lower quality than their counterparts found in other countries, except for fooding perhaps.
Want an example of wild capitalist being tamed? Cell phones market, search engine market, etc... virtually almost any market in the U.S. Take Dell for instance. Even though far ahead any competitor, the company insists on practicing prices as low as possible, just to disencourage any competitor from entering their market, while keeping the best quality standards in the market.
All you need is having the choice to change if you are unhappy, and if none are available, create one of your own. It's not perfect, but works in the long run. That's what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they created the United States, and damn, were they right. Government regulations come in the other hand, restricting individuals ability to create options for themselves and for other people.

"We can see many excellent students, the best in the country who can pass hard vestibulares, graduates from good "universidades federais" who have their talent thrown away because they've learned obsolete curriculum in government universities and must learn everything back when they go to market, if they don't get unemployed for several months until getting a job as myself (of course, there is also the problem that the market is all f**ked up by government taxes and regulations, but graduates from private unis tend to get jobs more quickly)."

Not only that, but then, here in Brazil, you have the HUGE problem of nepotism. There are MANY brazilians that are extremely qualified for positions, but some ignoramus is put in the position instead because who his daddy is, many haven't even passed the required tests to be in such positions, as I'm sure you know.

So f**k you all.

"Take Dell for instance. Even though far ahead any competitor, the company insists on practicing prices as low as possible, just to disencourage any competitor from entering their market, while keeping the best quality standards in the market."

Remember now, the U.S. government WILL put their hands into this laissez faire system if there is a monopoly. Case and point: Microsoft. So there is some government interaction, even in the U.S., and this is a good thing because a completely free market could be dominated by one corporate force and become corrupt (although this is rare).

No, that's not a good thing. The Microsoft case is simply absurd and nonsense. If americans allow such things to continue to happen, USA will become soon another Brazil, where commercial disputes are usually solved in the courts.

Take a look, Microsoft was almost broken apart because they were offering a web browser for free!!! If they had a true monopoly without any threat, do you think they would offer something for free? Good that U.S. Supreme Court didn't split the company because that would be terrible. And what about Linux? Don't confuse leadership with monopoly. After all, a monopoly earned in free competition is not a bad thing, for people chose freely that that company had the best quality and prices! The problem happens when you have regulations that forbid other to compete against the leader/monopoly. About becoming corrupt, EVERY organization is potentially corrupt. I have no fantasies here, a market monopoly would have corruption, such as directors getting company resources for personal use and so on. The differece is that this is a problem between the company, the corruptor and its clients, not of the whole society. As as there is free competition and permanent threat to the monopoly, the methods to control corruption get much better, otherwise the company will simply go bankrupt. See Enron case.

Take now the example of Cornelius Vanderbilt when he broke the monopoly of the steam boats between New Jersey and New York. That was a true monopoly, issued by the State of New York. Vanderbilt was doing something illegal facing them, and he even offered his service for free after leading his competitors to bankruptcy! That's true capitalism and freedom and you americans should recognize that this made your country rich and powerful.

What we need is a much less powerful government, with all its tasks divided between numerous different branches, none have political power over the other, and some mehtods to assure competition among them. That was the idea of the Founding Fathers, that should be revisited.

No, that's not a good thing. The Microsoft case is simply absurd and nonsense. If americans allow such things to continue to happen, USA will become soon another Brazil, where commercial disputes are usually solved in the courts.

Take a look, Microsoft was almost broken apart because they were offering a web browser for free!!! If they had a true monopoly without any threat, do you think they would offer something for free? Good that U.S. Supreme Court didn't split the company because that would be terrible. And what about Linux? Don't confuse leadership with monopoly. After all, a monopoly earned in free competition is not a bad thing, for people chose freely that that company had the best quality and prices! The problem happens when you have regulations that forbid other to compete against the leader/monopoly. About becoming corrupt, EVERY organization is potentially corrupt. I have no fantasies here, a market monopoly would have corruption, such as directors getting company resources for personal use and so on. The differece is that this is a problem between the company, the corruptor and its clients, not of the whole society. As as there is free competition and permanent threat to the monopoly, the methods to control corruption get much better, otherwise the company will simply go bankrupt. See Enron case.

Take now the example of Cornelius Vanderbilt when he broke the monopoly of the steam boats between New Jersey and New York. That was a true monopoly, issued by the State of New York. Vanderbilt was doing something illegal facing them, and he even offered his service for free after leading his competitors to bankruptcy! That's true capitalism and freedom and you americans should recognize that this made your country rich and powerful.

What we need is a much less powerful government, with all its tasks divided between numerous different branches, none have political power over the other, and some mehtods to assure competition among them. That was the idea of the Founding Fathers, that should be revisited.