|
Emerging Markets |
|
|
Other Forums: What's New Bond Discussions Newslink |
|
|
Posted by
BradyNet
(
Friday, June 18, '04
)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It means prices of bonds and stocks will go lower, only that... Do not see any defalt in the short term run, in 2 years I can not garantee nothing although...
you have a point there caribinho. But if we think in helth and education as a very large part of the income distribution process, China is far away better than brazil.
Not everything needs to be changed. The fact the they didnt change the macro policy is a big plus, I think. But I certainly agree with you that progress has been frustrtatingly slow.
As for <Brazil = Titanic>, what does that mean? Default on external debt? In what time frame?
Brazil = Titanic
Our confusion lies here Gaucho. I am not saying brazil can not grow strongly for 1, 2, 4 years, I am saying brazil can not grow consistently for decades without distributing income first. Sure it can grow this year, maybe next year too, but than it will stop growing again. Sustained growth is what I am asking for Gaucho, sustained growth in the medium to long term run, growing 5%, 8% for the next 20 years.
Second, you can not compare sweden with china or Brazil just in terms of % of growth, cause china and Brazil are not developed countries, soo they realy have more space to grow.
The point about MPC is that it inceases the efficiency of economic policies, so <ceteris paribus, Brazil could probably achieve higher growth with a better distribution of income.> And here we agreed!
So the next step is exactly the one glutt and carib already started to debate, how to distribute income in Brazil?
Advice, thanks for the warning, later on, after <friday feijoada> digesting, I may try to find a better answer ;~]zzzz
I do not agree with that gaucho, not at all, I think the income distribution has to come from the government and not from the private sector.
Gaucho, income is not = Education. Education is one of the things in the other side of income, with is expenditures.
You spend your income in a lot of things, including education. If the government gives you free education, free food, free helth, you do not need to spend money in that, so your desposable income rises in the same way as a tax cut. Understood?
Gobierno deja de percibir ¢192 mil millones por recaudación
• Se agudiza la batalla abierta entre el Gobierno y los Libertarios.
• Deuda pública podría provocar crisis en 2005
Los enfrentamientos entre el Ministerio de Hacienda y los diputados del Partido Movimiento Libertario se están agudizando debido al estancamiento del proyecto. El tema de la reforma fiscal crea otra vez controversia entre el Ministerio de Hacienda y el Partido Movimiento Libertario debido a que la postergación de dicha normativa -que pretende la solución de las finanzas públicas- no le ha permitido al Gobierno recaudar ¢192 mil millones, en los últimos dos años, ni disminuir el déficit fiscal a ¢7.900 millones.
El jerarca de la autoridad hacendaria, Alberto Dent Zeledón, mencionó que si la reforma fiscal no se aprueba, en un corto plazo, el país podría sufrir, en el 2005, una crisis como la vivida en los años 80, ya que el hecho de no tener recursos nuevos podría implicar que se disminuyan las inversiones que el Estado hace en servicios básicos.
“Recortaremos los presupuestos de las instituciones, lo que se evidenciará en que no se puedan construir más carreteras, ni contratar más maestros, ni mucho menos abrir Ebais. Además los salarios, las pensiones y los intereses de la deuda pública -interna y externa- serán pagados con más endeudamiento”, dijo.
Dent comentó que existe una gran preocupación con respecto al aumento en las tasas de interés internacionales, específicamente, en Estados Unidos, ya que por cada 1% que aumenten a nivel interno -tanto en colones como en dólares- representarán un desembolso de ¢21.928 millones adicionales por concepto del pago de intereses a la deuda.
“Con estos recursos se podría financiar el presupuesto de un año de la Presidencia de la República y de los ministerios de la Presidencia, Vivienda, Comercio Exterior, Ciencia y Tecnología y Planificación” mencionó. Es necesario destacar, que de acuerdo con las cifras de Hacienda, no haber aprobado la reforma fiscal desde hace 26 meses, ha dejado un incremento de la deuda que sobrepasa los ¢245.954 millones.
El Ministro también detalló que la deuda pública ascendía en el 2003, a los ¢2,8 billones, por lo que, cada costarricense debe ¢698 mil y este problema ha venido creciendo en los últimos 20 años, porque los gastos ascienden a ¢1.173 millones, mientras que los ingresos apenas alcanzan los ¢973,273 colones, motivo por el cual, el Gobierno tiene que aumentar el endeudamiento tanto externo como interno”, destacó. Piden explicaciones a los Libertarios
El jefe de la política hacendaria responsabilizó contundentemente a los diputados del Partido Movimiento Libertario por estar entrabando el paquete fiscal y cuestionó que existan grupos que están financiando la no imposición del paquete tributario, por fuertes intereses económicos y porque son millonarios que no quieren pagar impuestos.
“Solicito a los libertarios que identifiquen a los grupos que han venido financiando las campañas televisivas millonarias en contra de la reforma, porque el país tiene derecho a saber de frente quiénes y por qué se oponen a resolver de una vez por todas el problema de la deuda interna”, destacó.
Ante dichas declaraciones, el diputado del partido Movimiento Libertario, Carlos Salazar, dijo que la gente que está financiando las campañas en contra de la reforma fiscal son allegados a la fracción, tanto personas físicas como jurídicas, que mediante una alianza con la empresa Producciones Libertad está tratando de informar sobre un paquetazo de impuestos que lo único que hace es afectar al pobre.
Descartó que fueran millonarios, como los que han financiado al Partido Unidad Social Cristiana (PUSC) en sus diferentes campañas políticas, incluso al propio Gobierno actual.
Según el ministro, la Asamblea Legislativa cuenta con mayoría para estar a favor del proyecto, pero el boicot de un grupo minoritario no ha permitido que las medidas avancen.
“En un país democrático no deberían suceder hechos como estos, hemos pasado tres días discutiendo 1000 mociones impuestas al artículo #1 que solamente define el objetivo de la reforma fiscal, lo cual me parece una falta de seriedad”, concluyó Dent.
BTW: What is the treatment like for arms dealers suppling Al Queda who fall into GNoE hands ? Caviar and champagne ?
That is very good question Glutt, and my answear is very simple. The government of Brazil will have to do the job, cause is the government of Brazil that is messing up the income distribution, by a very inefficient, old and expensive tax system that needs to be througn in the garbedge.
Is like I said in my first posting Glutt, government has to reduce taxes and simplify the system. And do not be affraid of a primary surplus reduction, cause primary surplus will actualy increase once we have passed the maximum point of the lapher curve. In Brazil today if you reduce some taxes you will get in the end of the day more money for lower tax rates.
I expect judges and politicos to do their jobs Glutt, witch is to improve the living standards of Brazil and create the best enviornment for sustained growth. And if this includes reducing taxes, so do it, if this includes desmissing a lot of corrupt "Fiscais" I expect them to do it as well and so on.... It surely looks like a dream my friend and it surely does not look like this politicos and judges of Brazil will do anything like that, but it also surely explains why the hell brazil can not grow consistently in the mediium term even with all it´s "potential" for that.
Well, maybe if he wanted to throw off US intelligence...ok, maybe there is a legitimate reason. But targetting a Harvard student who otherwise raises no red flags strikes me as stupid and smacks of legalism.
Agreed but, unless you consider income = education, its not the same thing. A population may be homogeneously educated, yet its income not be homogeneously distributed (UK or France, say) We seem to agree, however, on the important point: better levels of education lead to more homogeneous distribution of wealth. I think some 95% of the political establishment misses this important point.
Side note: in Brazil, there is 80% illiteracy or functional illiteracy (ability to read, but not to extract meaning). If 80% of the workforce is illiterate and 5% is highly skilled, how can there NOT be a chasm between incomes? Yet there is this notion, common among left-wing politicians, that a skilled worker whose income is 100 times greater than that of an illiterate is somehow guilty of theft...
<<But maybe a better distribution is a consequence, and not a cause, of economic development> No it is not, do not agree with that at all. Do not know any country that atchieved economic development without distributing income, in the many and different forms of doing it. Income distribution, including here access to education of course, is fundamental for economic development and not the reverse.>
Agreed. What I said, though, is that a homogeneous distribution of income is not a pre-requisite for growth. Brazil grew above average in the XXth century, with a sub average distribution of income.
<When you say that China would not be growing, you are wrong, cause China has a mutch better income distribution than Brazil and that is exactly the point. If China did not have this, it would not be growing as it is.>
What I said was that China, with a worse distribution of income than Sweden (correct me if I am wrong on this), grows more than Sweden.
<About Cruzado and the real plan, you are absolutely right, 2 experiences were income distribution happened and the result was growth, of course, as I am trying to deffend here.>
If I understood correctly, your contention was that Brazil cannot grow strongly because of its low MPC. Well, it grew stongly in those two instances and during most of the XXth century.
<One thing that I do not know if became clear is the fact that distributing income not necessarely brings growth, it increases the MPC of the country and by doing that it increases the multiplier, meaning this economy will respond better to economic policies. That should be understood, growth to happen will need other things, will still need the right monetary and fiscal policies on the medium term run, but will need less fiscal and monetary efforts to atchieve the same results.>
Yes, understood and agreed: ceteris paribus, Brazil could probably achieve higher growth with a better distribution of income.
Now this I agree Caribinho! 100% agreed!
Carib, the problem I think is deeper, cause higher education in Brazil is for free yes, but with a very high limitation of number of students, and what happens in reality is that the ones that study make the higher education for free are the same ones that had the money to pay for better primary schools. The poors are out of the higher education for free category in real life, and are the ones we should be puting in. In other words I do not think there is a fiscally neutral solution for this.
Please read our disclaimer.
Home Page |
BradyNet Pro |
Search |
CyberExchange
General Correspondence: bradynet@bradynet.com
Questions/Problems? support@bradynet.com
This site copyright © 1995-2000 BradyNet.com
Forfaiting |
Closing Prices |
Live Prices |
New Issues |
Ratings
BradyNet Tour |
BradyNet FORUMs |
BradyNet Email Directory |
Index (Site Map)
Analysis & Research |
BradyNet Center |
News |
Jobs
