
How Fake Money Saved Brazil (2010) - mrb
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2010/10/04/130329523/how-fake-money-saved-brazil
======
leovonl
Sorry, but this story gets nowhere near the real reasons for the inflation
reduction.

The major and most important change on the Brazilian government to achieve
this was the LRF - Lei da Responsabilidade Fiscal, "Fiscal Responsibility Law"
in English (free translation).

With these law, federal, state and municipal governments, which added much
more oversight and control to public spending, requiring budget increases to
go through congress, forbidding "money printing" practices and also requiring
detailed accounting records to be submitted to a branch of the judiciary (TCU)
for approval.

I could go on and write a huge document here, there's a lot of historical
questions involved too. If anyone is interested in more details please let me
know.

~~~
mempko
Public spending is never the underlying reason for hyper inflation. Usually
there are other circumstances like supply problems. Money chasing too few
resources. If resources and production kept up with money supply increase,
then there would be no problem. Deficit spending is necessary if you want
private sector to have savings.

For example, look at Japan. Central Bank tried for over 25 years to increase
inflation without success. It's actually not very easy to do.

~~~
SubiculumCode
I agree. Most historical cases of hyperinflation had major structural/sytemic
issues limiting production capacity relative to demand. Currency creation is
only a problem relative to the capacity to produce.

------
whack
It's saddening the number of national economies that have been destroyed by
politicians who don't understand economic fundamentals. When it comes to most
matters like the military for the example, we trust our generals to organise
and manage the Armed Forces as per their best judgement. And yet, when it
comes to economic policy, we persist in thinking that it should be implemented
by career politicians and popular opinion. As long as that doesn't change, I
think we're doomed to see endless repeats of such rookie mistakes.

~~~
cloakandswagger
What more do you want then? Nearly every country in the world has adopted the
US's system of central banking: an unelected, privately owned central bank
that creates money through bond purchases or some other mechanism.

In the US this entity is so revered that their policies are rarely even a
point of discussion in our extremely partisan politics. Hell, just suggesting
that they permit an _audit_ is considered controversial.

As far as I can tell, politicians exert basically zero influence over actual
monetary policy. As long as they have a constant supply of new fiat to fund
entitlements and other niceties for their constituents they don't rock the
boat.

~~~
smallnamespace
> What more do you want then?

I'd like the Federal Reserve to control overall fiscal policy as well. The Fed
tells Congress exactly how much it can spend each year, and Congress divvies
it up however it likes.

~~~
jomamaxx
"I'd like the Federal Reserve to control overall fiscal policy as well"

This is beyond irresponsible.

The Fed is a bank (and privately owned) - not an apparatus designed to manage
the state.

They have absolutely no businesses determining fiscal policy.

We elect people to manage our finances, maybe what we need is 'better
democracy'.

~~~
smallnamespace
> The Fed is a bank (and privately owned) - not an apparatus designed to
> manage the state.

Not true:
[https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm](https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm)

"The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone. Although parts of the
Federal Reserve System share some characteristics with private-sector
entities, the Federal Reserve was established to serve the public interest."

and also

"The Reserve Banks are _not operated for profit_ , and ownership of a certain
amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. In fact,
the Reserve Banks are required by law to transfer net earnings to the U.S.
Treasury, after providing for all necessary expenses of the Reserve Banks,
legally required dividend payments, and maintaining a limited balance in a
surplus fund."

~~~
jomamaxx
The FED is definitely privately owned. It's a private company with a share
structure. Most banks in America have a share in it - or rather the regional
bank.

" Although parts of the Federal Reserve System share some characteristics with
private-sector entities, the Federal Reserve was established to serve the
public interest."

Don't be so naive. A private company tells you 'they are to server the public
interest' and you believe them?

Listen - I'm not a conspiracy theorist. Generally speaking, the Fed is much
like other central banks. But make no mistake - it is not a public entity.

Try this: the US government does not have access to the financial records of
the Fed. Congress wanted to do an audit of the Fed - and they were blocked
from going back past 2004.

Think about that. The US currency system is controlled by an entity that will
not let the public see what's in their records.

That's insane.

My bet is that from 1913 to past the Nixon era there is crazy, crazy stuff on
the books, and confidence in the US currency would go crazy if that
information got out.

Also - just because it does not generate a profit does not mean that it's not
used for the benefit of the banks. They set interest rates that suit their
interest, not necessarily the interest of the general public.

The Fed should definitely be nationalized.

~~~
smallnamespace
> It's a private company with a share structure.

Sure, it has private shares, but it was created by an act of Congress, its
charter _explicitly states its public mission_ , it doesn't run a profit, its
head and a majority of its board is appointed by the President and confirmed
by Congress, and its basic functions are interbank clearing and payments.

At this point, it looks so little like any other private entity that treating
as such seems silly. If it looks like a central bank, quacks like a central
bank, ...

> They set interest rates that suit their interest, not necessarily the
> interest of the general public.

I call BS. Low rates are almost always punitive to banks' bottom lines,
because they make the spread between deposit rates and lending rates; when
rates are low, that spread gets compressed to zero. If they only served their
bank 'shareholders', how do you explain monetary policy since 2008. Or going
further back, the fact that the Fed tried to pop the stock market bubble in
'29, even though all the big banks were clearly benefiting from it?

[https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2016/may/banks-
mor...](https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2016/may/banks-more-
profitable-interest-rates-high-low)

> Listen - I'm not a conspiracy theorist

With all due respect, you are if you make these sort of claims without a shred
of evidence. The Fed chair + board basically decides the rate policy, and
he/she is always a career economist, not from industry. You think really Janet
Yellen is secretly taking kickbacks to screw around with rates?

And for your reference: [http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/federal-reserve-
bank-owners...](http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/federal-reserve-bank-
ownership/)

"Those decisions are made by the Federal Open Market Committee, which has a
dozen voting members, only five of whom come from the banks. The remaining
seven, a voting majority, are the Fed’s Board of Governors who, as mentioned,
are appointed by the president."

~~~
jomamaxx
You are wrong on all points:

\+ " If it looks like a central bank, quacks like a central bank" \- except
it's not. It's a privately owned and managed entity.

\+ "I call BS. Low rates are almost always punitive to banks' bottom lines"
this is completely false.

\+ " The Fed chair + board basically decides the rate policy, and he/she is
always a career economist, not from industry.". This is utterly, beyond naive.
The Fed Chair is an extremely politically driven position - they don't get to
this position and do whatever suits them or the economy. They take into
account the positions _of the companies shareholders_ \- which are the banks.
It's beyond reason that the banks act entirely in the public good. They are
'for profit' entities - and absolutely everything they do is 'for profit.

But you missed a key item that throws your argument to the wind: Congress does
not have access to the Fed's books. My friend - if you believe for a second
that the Fed is acting entirely in the public's interest - then the public
should be able to see what's on the Fed's books. You can't. Congress can't.
The President of the USA can't. Neither can the CIA, the NSA or the Treasury.

There is some legislation to this effect right now:

[https://oversight.house.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2016/05/H.R.2...](https://oversight.house.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2016/05/H.R.24.pdf)

It's inconceivably naive to believe that a cabal of bankers - who manage the
US currency - and who DO NOT LET US ACCESS THEIR RECORDS - is acting in the
best interest of the US.

There is NO COUNTRY IN THE CIVILIZED WORLD where this is the case.

And there's more. Now - this is more public info but it does demonstrate a
high degree of cabalism between banks and the Fed - after the 2008 crises, US
banks were very 'unhealthy' \- this is because they had 'toxic' i.e. worthless
mortgages on their balance sheet. So - the Fed - allowed banks to put those
mortgages on the banks balance sheet at _face value_ \- for a period of time.
Ex: ABC banks has a a crap mortgages on a house with a market value of $100K,
but the mortgage is for $200K (it's worthless) - they exchange them with the
Fed for a full $200K.

The intent of this 'program' was to shore up balance sheets of banks to make
them healthy - then while interest rates are low, bring the value of the homes
up so those mortgages are not 'underwater' at which point the banks will take
them back on their balance sheet. But that may never happen. It it has not
happened yet. In a nutshell - the Fed handed $1 to banks for something only
worth 50 cents.

This is fraud.

Not only that - this was not a small thing. This was the biggest transfer of
assets in _world history_. Have a look at the Fed's balance sheet recently:

[http://mengercenter.org/surprise-surprise-the-feds-never-
shr...](http://mengercenter.org/surprise-surprise-the-feds-never-shrinking-
balance-sheet/)

You see that big red are that is how 1/2 of the Fed's balance sheet and didn't
exist before: those are bull __t, worthless mortgages. 2.5 TRILLLION DOLLARS
WORTH.

You know where you don't find that toxic, worthless sludge: on the balance
sheets of _nationalized banks_.

Summary:

A) The Feds transactions are private - and nobody in government can access
them.

B) The Fed states that it makes decisions for the benefit of the economy, but
what they say is irrelevant: the system is designed first and formost for the
benefit of the banks.

C) A 2.5 Trillion dollar 'fraud' (technically, since the banks will 'one day'
take those crap mortgages back, it's not fraud - but they haven't and maybe
they won't so it's a crime in the making) - or at least a 2.5 Trillion dollar
'gift' to private banks by the central bank is only to the 'benefit' of the
people of the US to the extent that the entire banking system doesn't come
down and crash - but in a real capitalist system - most of those banks should
have had 100% of their shareholder value wiped out.

The Fed definitely needs to be nationalized.

~~~
smallnamespace
Hm, you simply ignored my points or straight contradicted them without any
sources.

> \+ "I call BS. Low rates are almost always punitive to banks' bottom lines"
> this is completely false.

Follow the link my friend -- net interest margins are sharply lower when rates
are low. If you are going to just flatly disagree, you're entitled to your
opinion, but I really don't think you will find accurate data to justify your
viewpoint.

> This is utterly, beyond naive. The Fed Chair is an extremely politically
> driven position - they don't get to this position and do whatever suits them
> or the economy.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Please make up your mind:
either the bankers own the Fed, or politicians do. Also, if you think that the
bankers own all the politicians, then nationalizing the Fed wouldn't help
anyway, would it?

Also, this bears repeating: _THE PRIVATE SHAREHOLDERS OF THE FED DO NOT
CONTROL THE FED, BECAUSE THEY ONLY CONTROL A MINORITY OF THE BOARD SEATS_.

> My friend - if you believe for a second that the Fed is acting entirely in
> the public's interest - then the public should be able to see what's on the
> Fed's books.

This is a classic conspiracy theorist argument. They don't want to show us all
their books, so they must be doing something bad and hiding it.

You don't have any evidence of any wrongdoing, you just presume that it exists
because of your prior beliefs.

In reality, people don't like politically motivated critics to rummage through
their books. Climate scientists don't want their critics access to their
e-mails -- does that prove that those scientists were faking climate change?

I wouldn't mind the Fed opening up all its books, but I also don't support a
witch hunt.

> the system is designed first and formost for the benefit of the banks

Begging the question. Please show me a credible, historical source that
supports your claim. It'd also help if you can explain the long history of Fed
actions that would've been against the interests of its private shareholders
that you claim completely control it. Let's start with the Crash of '29 and
the Fed's efforts to prevent it, for starters.

> or at least a 2.5 Trillion dollar 'gift' to private banks by the central
> bank is only to the 'benefit' of the people of the US to the extent that the
> entire banking system doesn't come down and crash - but in a real capitalist
> system - most of those banks should have had 100% of their shareholder value
> wiped out.

I agree there are issues regarding moral hazard and who should be paying for
the mess the bankers got us all in. But do you really think that the optimal
solution is for the US to nationalize every insolvent bank, and that they
could've done it without causing market panic and worsening the crisis in the
process?

Anyway, the Fed could be explicitly nationalized without any real-world
effect, precisely because it has been the textbook example of how to run a
central bank for the last 60 years. You seem to think that all other
countries' run their central banks better, but the truth is that _those banks
look to the Fed for leadership and guidance_.

> So - the Fed - allowed banks to put those mortgages on the banks balance
> sheet at _face value_ - for a period of time. Ex: ABC banks has a a crap
> mortgages on a house with a market value of $100K, but the mortgage is for
> $200K (it's worthless) - they exchange them with the Fed for a full $200K.

Really doubt that--credible source please? Open Market Operations by
definition are done at market prices; the Fed does not buy assets for twice
their market value. I agree it would be pretty criminal if they did, but it
would also be blindingly easy to find the evidence: just look at the free
money flowing into each bank's balance sheets and cashflow statements.

If you think the Fed did this, and then everyone conspired to hide the
evidence, then we are certainly far into conspiracy theorist territory.

~~~
jomamaxx
DUDE. WHY WOULD BANKS EXCHANGE $X IN ASSETS FOR $X IN CASH FROM THE FED. THAT
WOULD BE POINTLESS. IT WOULD NOT CHANGE THEIR BALANCE SHEET MATERIALLY?

The reason they did it - is because they were exchanging $X in assets for N
_X$ in cash.

If they weren't getting 'better than market prices' \- the transactions would
not have occurred. The 'big red' area on the Fed's balance sheet would have
_no financial reason to exist _.

It's very existence implies the banks were getting a 'better than market
deal'.

Here is Forbes on exactly this transaction:

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2012/10/29/are-
fe...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2012/10/29/are-federal-
reserve-regulated-banks-laundering-dirty-money/#6d83334627cb)

Forbes - not exactly a conspiracy outfit - refers to it as "MONEY LAUNDERING"
and makes a direct comparison to organized crime.

From the article:

"After the Fed buys (at face value) and resells (at pennies on the dollar) the
bad mortgage-backed securities with newly minted electronic digits that it
places into the banks’ Federal Reserve accounts, it then sterilizes the entire
operation to prevent the new money from transmitting the dread inflation
virus. The Fed does so by, in effect, quarantining inside the banking system
the new toxic money used to launder the dirty loans."

There have been $9 TRILLION dollars in _off balance sheet* transactions that
the Fed refuses to disclose. (!!!!).

You say: "Open Market Operations by definition are done at market prices"

Prove it! Where is your evidence these transactions are done at 'Market
Value'??

\-----> The burden of proof is on you <\------

You can't prove it _because those records are not available_.

Ask yourself: WHY are those records not available? Because in every other
country they are.

Have a read:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_Asset-
Backed_Securities_L...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_Asset-
Backed_Securities_Loan_Facility)

"The Fed refuses to provide any information on how it priced individual
securities bought with TALF funds."

The Fed's primary objective is to keep the banks healthy.

'Would I rather see banks fail'

'Banks look to the Fed for leadership'.

It's all irrelevant. The banks shareholders should have been wiped out. Then
we can see some degree of financial packages and stimulus _with full
transparency and accountability_.

Dude - you are defending an opaque institution - that has issued 2.5 Trillion
dollars - without Congressional approval or oversight - and without providing
financial records!

You can't win this one.

~~~
smallnamespace
> DUDE. WHY WOULD BANKS EXCHANGE $X IN ASSETS FOR $X IN CASH FROM THE FED.
> THAT WOULD BE POINTLESS. IT WOULD NOT CHANGE THEIR BALANCE SHEET MATERIALLY?

Actually, that's precisely what the Fed normally does. Banks need to maintain
cash on their balance sheet to meet reserve ratios; being able to trade their
assets in for cash at market price allows them to do precisely that.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_market_operation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_market_operation)

Or to put it another way, OMO shouldn't _not_ magically increase a bank's
assets (which is what would happen if you took a $1 bond and gave it $2 in
cash), but it _should_ increase the amount of cash. It is not 'pointless' \--
trading cash for assets, _at the market price_ , is precisely how monetary
policy works.

[https://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed32.html](https://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed32.html)

"The Desk initiates this process by announcing the OMO through an electronic
auction system called FedTrade, inviting dealers to submit bids or offers as
appropriate ... The dealers' propositions are evaluated on a competitive best-
price basis"

It's by definition a market price because the transactions are done via open
auction to anyone on the Street.

Btw, your source is an op-ed contributor whose main thesis is that the Fed is
up to no good, and also doesn't provide any references. He basically assumes
that all the assets the Fed purchased are bad assets, without any proof. I
took a look at those charts you shared and looked back and the Fed balance
sheet. The vast majority of assets are T-bills, T-bonds, MBSes, e.g. NOT crap
assets.

> \-----> The burden of proof is on you <\------

I don't really agree. We have two differing points of view -- why do you
automatically get presumed to be correct? This is a forum discussion, not a
trial. But if it were, I think the burden of proof falls onto the person
alleging wrongdoing, like you're doing here.

> You can't win this one.

What makes you think this is about winning? I like to share why I hold my
opinion and also see where other people are coming from, but frankly, you seem
to be turning this into a personal pissing contest.

It's pretty obvious you made up your mind, and no amount of reasoning or
evidence from me is going to sway you. Given that that we can't even agree on
very basic facts, like how the Fed goes about its normal daily business, or
its governance structure, which are all pretty easily verifiable on Wikipedia
or mainstream news sources, I'm not sure what value there is to continuing to
discuss this other than getting us both worked up into a lather.

Anyway, thanks for sharing :)

------
Aldo_MX
Previous discussion:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9617710](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9617710)

------
hudell
I remember thinking as a kid: "It's been a while since we last changed
currencies". And also wondering how long the USA were using dollars and things
like that. Took me some time to realize that changing currency is not
something that countries do every other year.

------
joeblau
I lived in Brazil from 1989 to 1992 and while I was there, the money changed 3
times (I think cruzero, cruzado, cruzado novo). I was just a kid but I
remember the price of drinks at the local shopping strip raising extremely
quickly. I really think the mind game to trick the economy into a stable
currency was amazing.

------
jomamaxx
It's a really interesting piece because it shows how 'popular confidence' is a
different thing than 'investor confidence'.

That said, it would seem that this was not a 'fake currency' -rather the
introduction of a more sound system that people actually did trust.

In a way, simply implementing good financial policy.

But the details of it are pretty neat :)

~~~
SubiculumCode
I think public confidence is not as important as the denomination inwhich
taxes must be payed...and inflation was happening because they had limited
domestic production capacity and could not afford to buy foreign goods.

------
crdoconnor
This economic plan - pegging to the US dollar - led to large current account
deficits.

The only reason why this "worked" was because following the plan imposed by
foreign investors (i.e. the IMF) meant that they could secure foreign
currency.

This still meant that they were basically swapping hyperinflation for racking
up a huge external debt instead, and they were essentially more dependent upon
foreign investors. The fact that this 'worked' and didn't lead to disaster was
probably due to the fact that oil prices kept creeping up. Currency pegging
was used in Venezuela too and that story ended in disaster.

In terms of poverty reduction, Lula's Bolsa Familia program was more effective
than this at actually helping people, but foreign investors love the story
about how "Brazil was made safe again for foreign investors".

~~~
whack
Any time you have an entity that's low on capital but high in potential, it's
bound to attract outside investors, which is in turn bound to produce current
account deficits. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Having outside investors
provide the capital needed to ramp up your operations, can be a huge win-win
for both sides. In fact, this is exactly how most successful startups got to
where they are today.

In contrast, I can't think of a single country with hyper-inflation that had a
successful economy.

~~~
crdoconnor
>Any time you have an entity that's low on capital but high in potential, it's
bound to attract outside investors, which is in turn bound to produce current
account deficits. This isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Taking on large foreign debts has pretty much led to disaster everywhere from
Greece to Thailand to Zimbabwe.

Where it's "worked out", it's usually been a way for foreign investors to
extract wealth from a country's natural resources.

Any time anybody tells you that the best way to grow a business is to rack up
lots of credit card debt, _run_.

>Having outside investors provide the capital needed to ramp up your
operations, can be a huge win-win for both sides.

You have to make sure that the outside investors are put on a leash (as they
are in China). If you don't, you end up bringing in lots of capital causing a
spike of growth for a while, destroying local businesses (who can't compete
with foreign businesses) and then when it ends the economy craters and
inflation spikes once again.

>In contrast, I can't think of a single country with hyper-inflation that had
a successful economy.

I can't think of a single country with a successful economy that hasn't at
hasn't taken the IMF's guidelines and done the exact opposite (contrast South
Korea's relative success with Thailand's).

------
sevenless
Presumably they could've also gone back to a gold and silver standard. (This
would be a terrible idea for other reasons, but it wouldn't inflate, right?)

~~~
edko
Argentina did something similar in the 90s. Not with precious metals, but with
a strong currency (the dollar). It did stop inflation, but, after a decade, it
had to be abandoned, because it was too restrictive. Of course, if politicians
would have been less corrupt, or better at making decisions, maybe it would
have worked longer.

~~~
GFischer
Ecuador went one step ahead in 2000:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_substitution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_substitution)

I can't find non-biased studies, but I believe it was mostly positive:

[http://www.cato.org/blog/dollarization-hurting-ecuador-
dont-...](http://www.cato.org/blog/dollarization-hurting-ecuador-dont-believe-
it)

------
vegabook
How is this "fake money" more fake than the fiat currencies we use every
single day, everywhere? It always simply comes down to the credibility of the
issuance rules and the issuing entity.

------
nishnik
How did it work?

~~~
woliveirajr
People were used to inflation, and prices would go up as a regular practice.

Indexing prices using URV, all prices would increase in a regular pace, all
prices together, and inflationary pressure would lose the irregularity (no
more uneven increases, that anyone would compensate in the next step).

After a while, just rename this fake money to "real", and you have Brazil with
its long-surviving money.

------
spynxic
Anyone know what currency oil is traded in?

~~~
woliveirajr
US$.

Some countries (Iran) want to change to euros. [1]

[1] [http://www.globalresearch.ca/currency-war-escalation-iran-
wa...](http://www.globalresearch.ca/currency-war-escalation-iran-wants-euros-
instead-of-us-dollars-for-oil-payments/5506266)

~~~
cloakandswagger
Iraq was one of the first to start enacting plans for a Euro-oil exchange.
That was shortly before the US went to war with them.

Come to think of it, Libya was in the process of creating a gold-backed
currency when the US went to war with them! Hm...

------
squozzer
So if they try this in the US, I hope they call the new currency the clam. Or
maybe the sur-real. <rim shot>

------
hiphipjorge
Planet Money is definitely one of the best podcasts out there. Everyone should
give them a listen!

------
fiatjaf
This stupid article gets posted here every year. It's a lie.

------
necessity
Next in HN: "Amazing! Scientists cure cancer with natural juice!"

------
shambala
Ridiculous. They should have dollarized the economy. It would have forced
internal and external discipline on them.

~~~
ufo
That is precisely what they did. 1 URV = 1 USD

~~~
sebastianconcpt
Yep. And Argentina did the same in the 90's and they made 1 Peso = 1 USD. And
it stopped hyperinflation.

What screwed up Argentina (big big time) was having state size go completely
out of control and grow and grow until deficit couldn't be grown anymore and
debt either.

After that crisis (2001) 5 presidents in 1 week, currency devaluation and a
populist new president took office, then his wife (the Kirchners) and they
almost became what Venezuela is today.

------
RobertoG
Narratives are powerful things.

The article says: "And, basically, inflation did end, and the country's
economy turned around. "

This is Brazil GDP per capita: (1)

It falls in 1992 (they forget to tell us that), exactly with the intervention
that the article mentions.

Then it goes up, then down and then kick off spectacularly in 2002 (the year
that lefty Lula Da Silva wins the election, by the way)

the article says: "Brazil became a major exporter, and 20 million people rose
out of poverty." and finish with "Everybody was very happy."

This is Brazil poverty headcount ratio: (2)

We can see an amazing trend down from, again, 2002. Unfortunately I can't find
the data from 1992 but that would be interesting in order to check the
"everybody happy" thing.

(1):
[https://www.google.es/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&m...](https://www.google.es/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&idim=country:BRA:CHN&hl=en&dl=en)

(2):
[https://www.google.es/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&m...](https://www.google.es/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&idim=country:BRA:CHN&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=poverty_headcount_ratio_at_national_poverty_line&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:BRA:CHN&ifdim=region&tstart=999468000000&tend=1409695200000&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false)

~~~
necessity
They are indeed, just as you try to attribute the rise in the GDP to the party
that a few years later broke the country without changing its policies.

~~~
RobertoG
I didn't attribute anything.

Only pointing how easy is to create the appearance of causality.

Is Brazil broken? I didn't realize, let's check those graphs again.

And, are not trying to attribute the current problems in the economy of Brazil
to a party instead of the current world economy. But, I bet, you think that
the previous boom have nothing to do with that party. That was only the world
economy.

