Slimebeast said: Wasn't Brazil's economy booming in the years before 2008 (or whenever it was the global financial crysis hit your country)? Or am I rong? I fink you hade a nice 5% GDP yearly growf and wages went up. But the crysis has gone on for much longer in Brazil than it did in the West. |
Is GDP the money that each citizen gets / by the number of citizens of the country ?
Brazil wasn't affected by the global financial crysis, but now it is being affected. From 2009 to 2014 the only time Brazil was down on GDP was by 0.1-1% in 2009, but was up by 3-7% every year from 2010 to 2014. Those are the actual numbers for the country.
Here on Brazil the people are really one sided and majority isn't aware of the true situation of the country, even a lot of newspapers are misleading. The problem is that half of the country is one sided for one thing while the other is for the other thing. The Last elections were 54 Millions of votes against 52-53 Millions of votes (in the last part, which only had 2 candidates). The 2 had very different opnions.
One wanted to sell everything, even a lot of healthy public companies, and take responsibility away from the state. Like Culture, Healthy and Education, make everything private to lower the costs of the government. Indeed, they sold a very good public mineration company, Vale do Rio Doce, for a low price when they had a President in the 90s. And is because of that President that now, on Brazil, a President can be eligible for 2 elections in a row. In each one they can stay for 4 years if they win.
The other one want to make everything without making nothing private, cancelling social programs or cancelling the payment of retiree and pensioners. The Government can't afford all of that. She was the one who was elected as President in 2014
You need to see official documents because it is very hard even for the press because of how one sided things are. One focus on healthy programs, like taking doctors from other countries to Brazil, and Social programs, like paying some money for people and making houses. While the other program take away the higher tax for transactions, the ones that rich people usually pay. And, more recently, after they changed the President. They took away some benefits of the workers and raised the number of hours worked per week by more than 50%.
To make it short. The "battle" here is between a popular program that need to be tied with unpopular candidates in order to be elected and thus have a half-sided government. Against a un-popular government that focus on making everything private, despite how well the company or thing is, and will focus on banks and this kind of thing. The only difference is that one candidate, the one who was the president, is tied because of campaign deals that she made in order to be elected, while the other have the "unpopular thing" from the start, as an intention.
One more thing, the "unpopular" one is the leader of the Senate and every other thing of the genre.