Why Brazil landed on its feet after the Bushwhack Financial 9/11

[Peace Patriot]

The truth comes from, of all places, Rotters--that rotten European 'news' monopoly (brethren to the Associated Pukes) that is ALWAYS dissing Leftists in South America. Call me surprised...

:wow:

The scoop from Rotters was brought to my attention by BoRev.net with the following tidbit and link...

"'Anti-capitalist' banking policies have saved Brazil from the brunt of the financial crisis. The masters of the universe are about to take notes at the upcoming G20 Summit."

http://www.borev.net/2009/09/titulares_asininity_63.html#comments

-------

The Rotters article...

-------

Brazil's tight bank rules a blessing in disguise

By Ana Nicolaci da Costa - Analysis

BRASILIA (Reuters) - Brazil's stringent banking sector rules, once seen as burdensome, are suddenly being viewed as admirable as the Group of 20 nations look to fortify financial institutions against future crises.

Among the main aims of the meeting of G20 leaders in Pittsburgh on September 24-25 is to follow through on their call to toughen oversight of key financial firms, after the global financial crisis showed the danger of lax regulation.

Brazil's system, which braved the crisis without the major bankruptcies and bank nationalizations that have reshaped capitalism in the rich world, is likely to be seen as a promising model by the group of developed and emerging powers.

Brazil's strong public bank presence provided a liquidity buffer at a time when private banks were reluctant to lend. The relative underdevelopment of the Latin American country's credit and mortgage markets also meant financial institutions were less exposed to the shadowy financial products that pushed the global banking system to the brink.

But analysts say Brazil's strict capital requirements and broad central bank oversight were especially important in helping to shield the banking system.

"Brazilian banks are coming out well because of the strong regulation in the financial system, which avoided a liquidity crisis in local markets and solvency problems," said Ceres Lisboa, a senior banking analyst at credit ratings agency Moody's Investors Service in Sao Paulo.

"Brazil today can serve as an example of bank regulation."

(SNIP)

Brazil also has a narrower definition of what constitutes capital. U.S. and European banks got into trouble because they were able to use hybrid securities and subordinated debt -- whose value came under severe pressure during the crisis -- to meet as much as half of their capital requirements.

The relatively conservative composition of Brazilian banks' portfolios meant such forms of capital were rare to begin with. Even if banks wanted to include hybrid instruments in their capital, they need authorization from Brazil's central bank.

Unlike the U.S. Federal Reserve, whose regulatory authority was limited to depository institutions, Brazil's central bank already had the authority to monitor the wheelings and dealings of risk-taking investment firms. That includes the type of off-balance sheet vehicles used by many U.S. and European brokerages to keep loss-making assets out of their books.

(MORE)

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE58965M20090910?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

--------------------------------

Don't you just love (I mean hate) the use of the word "conservative" in the above article? That's Rotters for you. Good Leftist government--with STRONG REGULATION--lands a country on its feet amidst the biggest capitalist meltdown since the Great Depression, and Rotters tags those policies "conservative"--as if FDR were a "conservative"--a label they ALSO gave to the RADICAL fascist criminals of Wall Street and the Bush Junta! Bush was not a radical fascist criminal--he was a "conservative"! Remember? What they wanted you to think, with that labeling, was: conservative = good. Massive looting, massive deregulation, torturing prisoners and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent people to steal their oil are conservative--and, conservative = good--ergo, massive looting, massive deregulation, torturing prisoners and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent people to steal their oil are GOOD. Get it?

But now--NOW!--that the Bushwhack shit has hit a million fans, they're looking around for leaders who were not stupid, greedy fuckheads, and who followed the policies of the "NEW DEAL" and they're calling it CONSERVATIVE, to get you to start reversing the meaning of "conservative" (stupid, greedy, fuckheadism) to mean the pre-Reagan banking system, before all that Reaganite-Bushite godless looting took place.

So let's get this very straight. Strongly regulating banks and the wolves of Wall Street with a strong central government, acting in the interests of The People, is SOCIALISM. Got that? Way Left on the spectrum. That's what "good" is. "Conservative" means = let the wolves eat the children. Rightwing = BAD, BAD, BAD. No jobs! No credit! No manufacturing! No food on the table! No money for schools or anything. Meltdown! Disaster! And how Brazil landed on its feet in this disaster (and how Venezuela and others did as well) was by LEFTIST, SOCIALIST policies that Rotters and the Associated Pukes and The Economissed and the Wall Street Urinal and the New York Grimes have been slandering as "dictatorial," and lying through their noses about for ten years, between snorts of cocaine that the US "war on drugs" keeps shoveling over the border from that "conservative" (radical fascist) country called Colombia.

:mad: :bounce: :argh: :bounce: :mad:

[Braulio]

1. Regulating the Capital Markets

Strong and efficient regulation of capital markets isn't "anti capitalist". Lula da Silva runs a very efficient capitalist economy, what he has done is implement meassures to soften it's "savage nature" to take many Brazilians out of poverty. This model is similar to the one used in say Chile or Sweden. It is a very different model from the one used in Cuba or the one being implemented in Venezuela, which lean more towards marxist dogma in which the state controls most of the means of production and becomes an oppressive, corrupt entity.

[Peace Patriot]

3. Oh, yeah? You talk to anybody who self-identifies as a "conservative" these days,

and they'll tell you that regulating markets is SOCIALISM, if not COMMUNISM, if not TERRORISM. They called FDR a "dictator" for regulating Big Business, investors and markets, as well as for Social Security! They called it all "socialism," and in a twisted kind of way they were right.

Not that I take my definition of Socialism from radical fascist looters and mass murderers, but Socialism above all encourages the government that we all pay for to protect us all from what FDR called "organized money," whether by organizing a national pension system, or instituting a fair tax system, or insulating bank deposits from the lunatic looters of Wall Street. Our corpo/ fascists call it "socialism" in order to condemn it, but what it really is is common sense and the will of the people in a democracy. And it is, in fact, socialism--the government, in the name of the People, taking responsibility for the common welfare on a nationwide basis.

This is the whole problem of the current health care debate. Obama is fighting the label "socialism" for what is actually a mixed health care program that is still dominated by huge, multinational insurance and medical corporations. Even a small "public option" has been demonized as "socialist." And it is socialism--but what's wrong with that?

When Lula da Silva protects Brazil's new, huge oil find from privatization, to insure Brazilian power over that resource, and the use of a large percentage of the profits to benefit Brazil's poor majority, that is socialism. When he makes a biofuels deal with Bush, i.e., with big US-based multinational corporations, that is capitalism. Brazil has a mixed capitalist/socialist system. So does Venezuela--which experienced red hot economic growth, up near 10%, over the last five years, with the most growth in the private sector (not including oil). It is a rightwing myth that Chavez is some sort of Stalinist. It shows a deliberate or inadvertent, misunderstanding of Venezuela's economic and political system. Nationalizing critical industries is not Stalinism. Harry Truman threatened to do it to the steel industry here. Obama has in essence nationalized the banks and the auto industry. It is a protective measure that governments sometimes need to take.

[MisterP]

5. the only way capital-dominated economies have survived is by making concessions to socialism

does anyone really think that the Dickensian, oligarchical, Iron-Heel system could have stayed on for 90 years after World War I? It would've disintegrated just as Marx anticipated and the orthodox Marxists preached. However, it patched itself up with welfare states and New Deals and GI Bills and public spending (just look at Boeing or ARPAnet). It's not that these programs increased the free-marketers' golden calf of Competition, it's that these were able to have directed goals beyond making money, or making the maximum amount of money. That's why so many formulations of public option are bunk: we don't want to be paying the leeches AT ALL. We don't want some foggy "competition" that will drive rates down from Extortionate to Still Unaffordable. We don't want some program whose primary goal is making sure they're not put out of business! More insurance companies isn't the answer: you can have nothing but bad choices even if you have a lot of choices. Even if there were no trend toward monopolism, there could be a lot of gougers, of which we have the "freedom of choice" to select one. Hence another crippling flaw to Capitalism as an -ism and as a system.

[Judi Lynn]

2. Absolutely. Any controls on business at any level has always been anathema to US conservatives.

We all know that. They have destroyed our own economy because of their absolute refusal to accept any degree of moderation in their destructive, greedy drive to take as much as humanly possible before they die.

Our whole country has suffered desperately because of THEIR selfishness. Brazil has gained steadily against crushing poverty among its poorest. Universes apart.

The nod to Venezuela from Lula was appropriate.

You're so right: there's nothing "conservative" about our conservatives, unfortunately.

Great post.

[Blue_Tires]

4. thanks for this....