The Economic Ascendancy Of Brazil: Fill & Download for Free

The most economically-ascendant countries in Latin America today are Mexico, Argentina, Chile, and Brazil. Chile’s wealth primarily comes from foreign investment while Mexico, Argentina, and Brazil have much more industrial production. Venezuela used to be one of the wealthiest countries in Latin America before Chavismo destroyed it.

1 The Reason For the Decline Of The West and The Rise Of ChinaThe rise of China is linked to the economic decline of the West. The high rate of economic growth of Shimoruran-Macroeconomics China and the low growth of the nations of the Washington-Consensus West is the major factor in producing the relative rise of China.Of course there are many historical factors. The most recent of these are: the determination of China’s “Paramount leader” Deng Xiaoping, that China should once again become what it previously was for centuries,, the greatest culture and civilisation in the world; the September 1972 rapprochement with Japan, and the many teams of Chinese politicians and economists who visited Japan from 1972–78 and how these visitors begged their hosts to share with them “the secrets of high economic growth” and they did; and perhaps above all, the competent response of millions of Chinese to an improved access to Shimomuran credit-created investment loans with their ultimate source in the People’s Bank of China (which is currently creating no-cost domestic investment credit at the level of about 25% of GDP a year).2 The Key Factor In Social, Economic, Political and Military PredominanceThe reason for the hegemonic dominance of the Untied Kingdom, which had enjoyed three seventy year periods of hegemonic dominance from 1735-1945, was that the UK was the first industrialised economy, and its world power was based upon that reality. And the hegemonic dominance of the USA was similarly due to the economic might of the USA for its single 70-year hegemony from 1946–2016.The world importance of any country in terms of its social, economic, political, and military power rests upon its economic strength.The Royal Navy once ruled “the waves” and dominated the oceans of the world. Where is it now? Due to the economic incompetence of successive British governments during the last century and a half - begInnIng in 1826 with the Joint Stocks Bank Legislation and the rise of the bank amalgamation movement from the 1870s which destroyed the “Country Banks” that had been the foundation of Britain’s inventive and Innovative greatness, and especially since 1980, when neo-liberalism triumphed and realistic economic thought was ruled out in UK university departments - UK economic decline was and is inevitable.Britain now has aircraft carriers with no UK planes on them. If EU aircraft were not on UK aircraft carriers, these vessels become totally incapable of any use. Given the UK is on course to leave the EU, how is that going to work in future?The brilliant president Franklin Delano Roosevelt along with his advisor John Kenneth Galbraith made an initially unwilling FED create billions of dollars of investment credit to finance the American war effort. SeeFDR’s American Economic Miracle 1938-44, or the First Economic Bomb - The USA from 1938 to 1944 (Part 1)China is currently using the same economic technology to become what the USA once was, the leading hegemonic power in the world. During the interphase there will be many economies with the potential to become world leaders, but China’s 40-year use of Shimomuran economics creates a great and an historical advantage in its future development. I calculate that China may become as Britain was, and may enjoy three 70-year periods of economic ascendancy.2 The Economic Decline of The WestUK and USA economic decline is due to a cultural-wide exercise of incredible economic stupidity. From 1946 until 1979 both of these countries and the world benefitted from the practice of Keynesian Macroeconomics at home and abroad. High unemployment was a thing of the past decades, and US economic advisors were loved because their recommendations took account of local economic conditions. I worked on secondment in the UN in 1976 and experienced that affection first hand.But after 1979/80 the two leaders of the previously foremost Western nations - Thatcher in the UK after 1979, and Reagan in the USA after 1980 - adopted neoliberal economics and the Americans, not content with adopting an unworkable macroeconomics domestically within the USA, promptly made the “one size fits all” neo-liberal (renamed Washington Consensus economics [WCE]) policy recommendations a precondition for the receipt of IMF/World Bank/OECD loans. So the whole kit and caboodle of neocon Washington Con Macroeconomics - the invalid castle in the air, brilliantly mathematical but lacking any real-world relevance, so utterly useless - has dominated many national policies since the 1980s. Privatisation, nearly everywhere an expensive failure! Foreign Direct Investment and the economic disasters of Brazil and Mexico! A vicious Austerity programme which impoverishes the poor so as to create tax cuts for the rich! And so it goes on.And that neo-liberal macroeconomics has utterly failed to provide higher rates of growth or for the relief of poverty either in the developed or the less developed world.3 A Comparison of the Results of Different Capitalist SystemsThere are two major systems of macroeconomic thought and practice in today’s world. The first is Washington Consensus economics [WCE} while the other major system is Tokyo Consensus Economics [TCE] otherwise known as Shimomuran macroeconomics.The Tokyo Consensus Shimomuran Economics has previously held sway in Japan (1945–73) South Korea (1950–70) and Taiwan (1960–90}, and all of these countries experienced very high growth during these periods.And they equally suffered very low growth once they adopted WC economics. Japan especially, after the BoJ got its independence in 1991, suffered a “lost generation” from 1991 and has still not recovered.China started out with Shimomuran/Toyko Consensus [TCE} macroeconomics in the mid 1970s and has never ceased that practice. Comparison of the different outcomes of WC and TC economics is made in the table below.All of this table is calculated from the CIA World Factbook {usually excellent in its statistics, but always defective in its Washington Consensus opinions).Poverty is highest as a percentage of the population in Washington Consensus countries of Japan, the UK, the USA, and South Korea. The USA with a population of about 324 million people has 49 million of these in poverty - four million more than the 45 million in poverty in the 1,3 74 million in China. China’s poverty percentage is only 22% of that of the USA.For more thorough comment on this table, see George Tait Edwards's answer to Is Washington Consensus a failure?Neoliberalism is certainly a failure. Even the IMF recognise that. See the June 2016 IMF Report atNeoliberalism: Oversold?4 The Economic Score Cards of Germany, the USA and the UK, and ChinaI have studied Shimomuran Macroeconomics since 6 November 1971 and have produced two books co-authored with John Carrington, and five other books written alone. It is possible to fill in the economic growth scorecard of a country by asking two questions:How well does this country fund its SMEs through a local banking system? andGiven there are seven pillars for Shimomuran rapid economic development, how many of these have been implemented in China?4.1 The Funding of SMEsThe Germanic KeyGermany is by far the most effective nation in its Sparkassen funding of its SMEs, or more accurately for its Small and Medium Sized industries. The partly Germanic nations of Austria and Switzerland also do well for the same reasons.Nearly all major future developments rest upon personal and small-group inventions which are the inventive basis for the Shumpeterian innovative transfer of new productive understandings to the factory floor. These developments are the key to a better future everywhere.In all nations, the largest sector in their economy is the SME sector, in terms of employment, contribution to GDP, taxes paid, etc. Because of this fact, I have allocated 25 points to the development.The USA and the UKThe Washington Consensus system in only about 5% as effective as Germany’s. Invention is high in the UK and USA but 95% of these new product designs do not make it to the factory floor because there is no investment funding system in 95% of situations.Dyson products, developed in Malmesbury near to my home in Bristol in the UK, are produced in factories in Malaysia. Apple iPads, invented in California, are manufactured in China by Foxconn. Many US vehicles are produced to US designs in Mexico.About 5% of the time US funding does fund US developments. Tesla, in its California factory making the best green electric cars in the world, is an example of that. See the information atTesla UKBut the conclusion is indisputable: Washington Consensus Economics is a 95% failure in funding the transfer of invention to the factory floor in the country of the invention. That’s way not good enough.Of course, the neo-classical mathematical models never include the role of banking in promoting development. So the Anglo-Saxon economies all go down the pan of WC economicsThe government priority for the US and the UK is the allocation of most of the gains of growth to the already rich - that is what WC economics observably does. Smith’s invisible hand (at the time he argued for it) was based upon British rich people supporting, through then-existing local banking systems, the local economic development of the SMEs in their town or borough. Nowadays the rich transfer most of their money into tax-avoiding unidentifiable offshore funds with minimal benefit to the country of their residence. Their money gushes abroad rather than trickling down.The governments of France and Germany are now engaged in pointless public service job cuts of about 120,000 for no good reason.ChinaThe Shimomuran Macroeconomics system of the Tokyo Consensus Zone is measurably responsible for 50% of the observed high economic growth rate of the Tokyo Consensus nations when they used that system.ChIna is the only country continuing to use most (but not all) of the insights of Shimomuran macroeconomics. SeeHow China Surpasses The EU and the USA, or The Seven Pre-Requisites for High-Growth Shimomuran…China scores about five out of seven on that listing.5 Table of resultsGiven my personal understanding of the role of different practices in the production of economic growth, I offer readers my scorecard of national economic understanding.[Note: This Table has been updated 7 February 2019 to reflect my most recent researches. The first number on the Table is the observed level of Hermann Simon “Hidden Champion” invention-innovations per million people - one per million for the post-Spenglerian rule-by-the-rich USA and UK, which have no SME-supporting local banking systems, and 20 per million for the SME-Supporting Sparkassen banking system of Germany. China does not have an even regional provision of SME-supporting banks, and only has a 60% coverage/result compared to best practice of 25HC/m. compared to best practice, judging by its export results, or 75% coverage compared to the now-reducing best practice in Germany. Neither Germany nor the USA nor the UK practise Shimomuran economics, so the best SME firms in Germany achieve regional European Union but not world dominance and Anglo-Saxon de-industrialisation continues without any apparent end in sight, while China partly practises S-W economics and follows about 80% of that policy but does not practice the inflation-limiting wage and salary awards nor the interest-rate-stabilising PBoC “real-value-mirror” of that major alternative Tokyo Consensus capitalism.]That explanation will suffice for now.In the meantime I offer the following comments:Germany has partly rationalised its local public banking system by about 20% so that system is no longer so complete. That system grows its Small Enterprises to Medium size (as MEs) but the lack of German understanding of Shimomuran economics denies these MEs further growth. So 20 out of 25.The USA and the UK can only exploit about 5% of the inventive capabilities of their people.They have no effective SME-supporting local banking systems whatsoever and only a small proportion of the extra income their governments give to their rich and very rich produces a little development. The government trend processes of political preference of finance over industry and the rich over the majority has produced the credit crunch and a long term trend of declining economic growth.China is about two thirds of the way to a much higher growth level. They have not implemented some of the local SME support measures and a couple or perhaps three of the seven growth facilitators that would inspire their people and significantly increase their economic growth rate.6 Conclusions6.1 WC economics only at best produces a 2% to 2.5% growth rate and most of these gains go to the already rich. That’s only between a fifth and a quarter of their likely maximum development rate.6,2 By not supporting SME establishment and growth, WC economies have reduced their future economic development possibilities. Unless their economists can escape from the WC mindset, these countries have a greatly reduced position in the future of the world. That’s what is currently happening.6.3 Even China is only about two-thirds of the way towards its possible higher development possibilities. It could be growing at 10%+ a year rather than about two thirds of that rate.6.4 The greatest risk to China is complacency.A representative of the Anglo-German foundation told me in the mid-1980s that Germany had no need to learn any economic lessons from Asia. American complacency and British political smugness have placed both of these countries where they now are, in a retreat from involvement in foreign markets and leadership in vital inventive and innovative developments.China should learn economic lessons from everywhere.7 Of course, China’s Rise Is inevitable.Momentum is the major force in national economic development and China is blessed with that.Kung Fou Tse (whom the barbarians call Confucius) is reported as saying “Four words the master likes very much- perhaps, maybe, possibly, later.”I would love to discuss these issues with interested governments and hope to do so later.Much more perhaps, maybe, possibly, later.

Basically any dictatorship that was anti-communist/leftist, no matter if they broke human right laws or were totalitarian.During the Cold War, the Americans and their allies did anything, and I mean ANYTHING to stop communists or socialists taking over the governments overseas and becoming friends with the Soviet Union or other communist countries. The CIA did not care if they meddled with governments to put in anti communist politicians even if the knew the politicians they were putting in charge were going to kill hundreds, even thousands of innocent people. To make it simple as pie, I shall divide a small (and remember, this is what I call small) list of dictatorships supported by the U.S by continents so that it is easy to read. So lets start with….…South America→ Brazil, General Castelo Brancoin the 1960s, Brazil was in a bit of a pickle. A stunning amount of left wing parties were rising in the wake of the Cuban revolution and the president of Brazil, Joao Goulart, a wealthy land owner who was keen to be a neutral power in the Cold War, tried to pacify internal dissent with a broad land reform packages. This alarmed his fellow elites, who appealed to the CIA for help. In 1964, the U.S. overthrew Goulart in one of the most violent CIA-backed coups up to that time.Goulart’s U.S backed successor, Castelo Branco, took money and training from the CIA during the revolt’s planning phase, and during the coup itself the CIA kept a Marine landing force on standby in São Paulo just in case Branco and company needed more firepower and help.And of course, the coup worked out, and Castelo Branco became the ruler of Brazil, killing people left and right, even those who supported the coup.→ Chile, General Augusto Pinochet.When the socialist Salvador Allende took power in Chile, the CIA and a anti-socialist named General Augusto Pinochet planed a coup against him, and on the September 11th, 1973, Salvador Allende was killed, along with any other Salvador Allende supporters. Pinochet herded labor leaders and other troublemakers into the National Soccer Stadium and forced them to sit in the stands while military police took them down by ones and twos to the field and shot them. Pinochet dispatched Allende ally General Ramos in a helicopter “Caravan of Death” to the north, where he had tens of thousands of “leftists” rounded up and disappeared.→ Paraguaya, Alfredo StroessnerAlfredo Stroessner Matiauda was President of Paraguay from 1954 to 1989. He ascended to the position after leading an (guess what) CIA backed army coup in 1954. His 35-year-long rule, marked by an uninterrupted period of repression in his country, is the longest in modern South American history, almost as long as Stalins rule.→ Guatemala, Carlos Castillo ArmasIn the 1950s, many farmers and peasants in Guatemala were starting to revolt against the United Fruit Company as it was exploiting them in various ways such as over time and small pay. The farmers and peasants were repressed during the revolt by the government, and in the elections latter that year they ended up voting for a left leaning politician called Jacobo Árbenz who tried to stop the exploitation.The u.s, scared of another leftist government, helped Carlos Castillo Armas overthrow Jacobo Árbenz, which worked, and lead to Carlos Castillo Armas coming into power, and like the rest of the politicians on this list, he became a dictator who killed people.Asia→ South Korea, Syngman RheeThe horrors of North Korean dictators have shocked the world of today, but many outside of Korea don’t at all know that for a time South Korea suffered through dictatorships of its own. In the 1950s, while Kim Il-sung brutally consolidated his control over the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in the north, the CIA-supported, anti-communist Syngman Rhee ran the Republic of Korea in the south.Rhee regularly purged, and occasionally killed suspected communists or supporters of communism. Just before the Korean War broke out in 1953, Rhee had approximately 20,000 supposed “communists” imprisoned, and in June of that year ordered the execution of those who he believed posed a threat to his regime, including leftists and those who collaborated with the Japanese in ww2.→ South Korea (again) Park Chung-HeeThanks to the Korean War and Syngman Rhee, By the 1960s the South Korean economy was in a state of poverty, while the North Koreans where experiencing there golden age and becoming very rich. Because of the collapsing economy, this saw the rise of Park Chung-Hee who seized leadership via a coup tacitly supported by the U.S. Upon entering office, Park declared the rule of martial law and amended the constitution to support his own authoritarianism.While the South Korean economy did begin its decades-long boom under Park, it came at the cost of political repression, corruption, and even violence. Park used sham elections to legitimize his rule by decree, which on the less harmful end of things, included dictating the length of men’s hair and women’s dresses.On the more extreme end, Park was known to threaten and torture lawmakers who disagreed with him, going so far as to execute eight individuals whose politics Park viewed as threatening to his regime in 1975. The CIA and State Department supported Park every step of the way, until his assassination in 1979 where they decided to stop supporting him.→ Indonesia, Suharto.In 1965, Suharto, a senior army officer, narrowly defeated a communist coup. In the aftermath, he moved to replace Sukarno and launched a purge of Indonesian communists supported by the CIA that resulted in thousands of deaths. In 1967, he assumed full power and in 1968 was elected president.Reelected every five years until his forced resignation in 1998, Suharto stabilized his nation and oversaw significant economic progress. However, he was criticised for his repressive rule and for Indonesia’s 1975 invasion of East Timor, which left an estimated 100,000 Timorese dead from famine, disease, and warfare.→ Vietnam, Ngô Đình DiệmNgô Đình Diệm was actually related to an ancient powerful family during the Nguyễn dynasty 100 years ago (Nguyen Dynasty got into power in 18th century).During his presidency, Diệm imposed programs to reform Saigon society in accordance with Catholic and Confucian values. Brothels and opium dens were closed, divorce and abortion were made illegal, and adultery laws were strengthened. He would latter take a major part in leading south Vietnam into war against north Vietnam.Ngô Đình Diệm was killed when the CIA betrayed him by supporting a coup against him in the 1960s.Europe→ Francisco FrancoFrancisco Franco was the leading nationalist general who fought against leftist parties/milltias and the government in the infamous Spanish civil war in the 30s, and won with the help of Germany and Italy. Anyhow during the 50s, 60s and 70s, NATO did not particularly like Franco because he was authoritarian, but they accepted his style of government as it was extremely anti-communist to the core.Another reason NATO, and especially the CIA supported Franco was when Spain became strategically important for the US to establish a military presence on the Iberian Peninsula as a counter to any possible move by the Soviet Union into the Mediterranean basin, leading to the U.S government paying Franco to allow American soldiers in Iberian Peninsula to guard it from the soviets.→António SalazarLike Franco Spain, António Salazar Portugal was extremely, EXTREMELY nationalistic and anti communist. And because he was anti communist and arrested communists, he got support from the u.s.But in the 1970s, revolutionaries and the CIA who turned there backs on him overthrew António Salazar regime and installed a democracy.Africa and the Middle East.→ Siad Barre, SomaliSiad Barre was a socialist leader of the Somalis back in the 70s, and although he was a socialist, the u.s helped him as he expelled the soviets and there aid out of Somalis, and instead manly traded with the United States until 1989.As part of Barre's socialist policies, major industries and farms were nationalised, including banks, insurance companies and oil distribution farms. By the mid-to-late-1970s, public discontent with the Barre regime was increasing, largely due to corruption among government officials as well as poor economic performance.The Ogaden War had also weakened the Somali army substantially and military spending had crippled the economy. foreign debut increased faster than export earnings, and by the end of the decade, Somalia's debt of 4 billion dollars equaled the earnings from seventy-five years' worth of banana exports.The untied nations stated that the "the 21-year regime of Siyad Barre had one of the worst human rights records in Africa, including the genocide against isaaqi people.→Reza Pahlavi, Iranthe U.S. had gained extensive control over Iran by putting Reza Pahlavi to power over Mohammad Mossadegh, a charismatic Iranian Premier, Mossadegh nationalised the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in 1951, a company that Britain received billions of dollars from per year Nationalisation enraged Britain’s leaders who then placed an embargo on Iran, impairing its economy. The U.S. was afraid Iran would fall to communism, which was considered a threat because of the ongoing cold war between America and the Soviet Union, so the u.s got rid of Mohammad Mossadegh, and replaced him with Reza Pahlavi.Reza Pahlavi got rid of the Nationalisation of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company while killing hundreds of suspected left wingers and communists, while torturing many more with training from the CIA. Reza Pahlavi was never popular, and he was overthrown and exiled in 1979.And just remember, this is a small list of people that the u.s supported, there were many more.