Brazil President Woos Market Vowing a New Economy and Finance Minister

Finance Minister Guido Mantega days are numberedDilma Rousseff, the president of Brazil, has hinted that if re-elected next month, she would not reappoint Finance Minister Guido Mantega. When reporters in Fortaleza asked Rousseff about Mantega’s role if she were re-elected, she responded: “A new election means a new government, a new team.”

“I won’t speak of appointments. Do you want to know why? Because it brings bad luck to talk about something that hasn’t happened yet. Nevertheless, it will be a new government, it will require a new staff. I have no doubt about that,” she added.

Removing Mantega would likely be an attempt to appeal to the markets as the country’s stagnant economy has been a persistent problem for Rousseff, despite repeated attempts to stimulate growth, particularly through consumption.

In an interview with Folha de S. Paulo, presidential aides said that Dilma Rousseff’s speech in the state of Ceará was part of a “process” to bring her government closer to the business sector and that it does suggest a change to the financial team is impending, if the current president faces reelection.

Mantega has been in charge since 2006 and is the minister to have held the longest office in the country during the democratic period. Rousseff has been pressured by former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to signal changes to Brazil’s economic policy in the event of a second mandate, in order to get business support.

Last year Lula suggested Guido Mantega to be replaced, which Dilma promised to assess, an advice she ended up not taking.

Marcos Troyjo, director of the BRICLab at Columbia University said that Rousseff and her mentor Lula were likely looking for a new appointment in an attempt to appeal to the business sector and calm the markets.

“I don’t think that Dilma blames Mantega for the struggle of the economy, but I do think that she knows that she needs to signal change to the market and perhaps sufficient short-term change, in her view, will be achieved by replacing Mantega with someone else,” Troyjo said.

Rousseff is deeply unpopular with Brazil’s business and industry sectors, which have objected to her highly interventionist economic policies and failure to reform Brazil’s Kafkaesque tax code. Her economic record took an another blow last week when data showed that the Brazil slipped into recession during the first half of the year.

According to Troyjo, the Rousseff administration has been characterized by attempts to simply repeat and intensify economic policies that proved successful for Lula – combining a consumption-based growth model with insufficient reform and too much focus on domestic, rather than global, trade.

“They didn’t work partly because Dilma didn’t have a strong personality in the central bank, and Mantega has failed to produce growth, failed to control inflation and failed at forecasting too, making so many mistakes on what growth will be,” he said. “So the element of trust and predictability has simply withered away from the administration.”

Since Marina Silva’s entrance into the presidential race on August 20, following the death of Brazilian Socialist Party (PSB) candidate Eduardo Campos in a plane crash, Rousseff’s chances of winning the election have fallen. In response, bond and equity markets have rallied, expressing their discontent with the incumbent.

“The market really wants to see Dilma and her team go,” Troyjo said.

Marina Silva, the daughter of poor and illiterate rubber tapper from the Amazon, is expected to benefit from a fatigue many in Brazil feel for the political establishment as represented by Rousseff and Aécio Neves, whose parties have, between them, held power for the past 20 years.

Yielding to the demands of last year’s mass street protest movement, which is central to her campaign, Marina Silva has promised to direct 10% of the GDP to public health care, extend school hours and launch digital-democracy programs.

Silva has also promised to run for only one term – a canny proposal designed to appeal to Workers’ Party voters who are tired of Rousseff, but would like to see the still-wildly popular Lula return to the Planalto in 2018.

According to Rousseff, who announced the future change in her economic team in an interview with daily O Estado de S. Paulo, Mantega will opt to leave the post in October for “eminently personal” reasons.
“Guido has already told me that he cannot stay in the government for a second term due to personal reasons, which I ask you to respect,” she underlined.

The politician has been in the Finance Ministry since 2006, when he assumed during ex-president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s second term in office. But the 65-year-old has been the focus of fierce criticism recently, with Brazil’s economic slowdown and an inflation level of 6.5% losing Mantega popularity.
Rousseff, meanwhile, faces a daunting battle against Socialist Party candidate Marina Silva, who looks set to be the head of state’s most dangerous rival in October’s polls.

According to recent opinion polls, Silva and Rousseff would tie a first round scheduled for October 5, with the former predicted to win by seven points in a theoretical run-off.

Mercopress

Tags:

You May Also Like

Joe Biden, US presidential candidate for the Democrats

Biden Ruffles Feathers in Brazil Threatening Country with Sanctions for Deforestation

U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden called on the world to offer Brazil US$ ...

Beans are booming. Robert Shunev/Unsplash, CC BY-SA

Climate Events in Brazil Have Started a Non-Ending Rise of World Coffee Prices

International Coffee Day feels very different this year. Introduced by the International Coffee Organization ...

It seems the future never arrives in Brazil What Lies Ahead in Brazil? Brazil Has No Exemplary Past or Present. But What Lies Ahead for the Country? Europeans, US, developed country, developing country. Bolsonaro, future B. Michael Rubin For years, experts have debated what separates a developing country from a developed one. The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of a country is one simple way to measure its economic development. Another way to measure a country's progress is the extent of public education, e.g. how many citizens complete high school. A country's health may be measured by the effectiveness of its healthcare system, for example, life expectancy and infant mortality. With these measurement tools, it's easier to gauge the difference between a country like Brazil and one like the U.S. What's not easy to gauge is how these two countries developed so differently when they were both "discovered" at the same time. In 1492 and 1500 respectively, the U.S. and Brazil fell under the spell of white Europeans for the first time. While the British and Portuguese had the same modus operandi, namely, to exploit their discoveries for whatever they had to offer, not to mention extinguishing the native Americans already living there if they got in the way, the end result turned out significantly different in the U.S. than in Brazil. There are several theories on how/why the U.S. developed at a faster pace than Brazil. The theories originate via contrasting perspectives – from psychology to economics to geography. One of the most popular theories suggests the divergence between the two countries is linked to politics, i.e. the U.S. established a democratic government in 1776, while Brazil's democracy it could be said began only in earnest in the 1980s. This theory states that the Portuguese monarchy, as well as the 19th and 20th century oligarchies that followed it, had no motivation to invest in industrial development or education of the masses. Rather, Brazil was prized for its cheap and plentiful labor to mine the rich soil of its vast land. There is another theory based on collective psychology that says the first U.S. colonizers from England were workaholic Puritans, who avoided dancing and music in place of work and religious devotion. They labored six days a week then spent all of Sunday in church. Meanwhile, the white settlers in Brazil were unambitious criminals who had been freed from prison in Portugal in exchange for settling in Brazil. The Marxist interpretation of why Brazil lags behind the U.S. was best summarized by Eduardo Galeano, the Uruguayan writer, in 1970. Galeano said five hundred years ago the U.S. had the good fortune of bad fortune. What he meant was the natural riches of Brazil – gold, silver, and diamonds – made it ripe for exploitation by western Europe. Whereas in the U.S., lacking such riches, the thirteen colonies were economically insignificant to the British. Instead, U.S. industrialization had official encouragement from England, resulting in early diversification of its exports and rapid development of manufacturing. II Leaving this debate to the historians, let us turn our focus to the future. According to global projections by several economic strategists, what lies ahead for Brazil, the U.S., and the rest of the world is startling. Projections forecast that based on GDP growth, in 2050 the world's largest economy will be China, not the U.S. In third place will be India, and in fourth – Brazil. With the ascendency of three-fourths of the BRIC countries over the next decades, it will be important to reevaluate the terms developed and developing. In thirty years, it may no longer be necessary to accept the label characterized by Nelson Rodrigues's famous phrase "complexo de vira-lata," for Brazil's national inferiority complex. For Brazilians, this future scenario presents glistening hope. A country with stronger economic power would mean the government has greater wealth to expend on infrastructure, crime control, education, healthcare, etc. What many Brazilians are not cognizant of are the pitfalls of economic prosperity. While Brazilians today may be envious of their wealthier northern neighbors, there are some aspects of a developed country's profile that are not worth envying. For example, the U.S. today far exceeds Brazil in the number of suicides, prescription drug overdoses, and mass shootings. GDP growth and economic projections depend on multiple variables, chief among them the global economic situation and worldwide political stability. A war in the Middle East, for example, can affect oil production and have global ramifications. Political stability within a country is also essential to its economic health. Elected presidents play a crucial role in a country's progress, especially as presidents may differ radically in their worldview. The political paths of the U.S. and Brazil are parallel today. In both countries, we've seen a left-wing regime (Obama/PT) followed by a far-right populist one (Trump/Bolsonaro), surprising many outside observers, and in the U.S. contradicting every political pollster, all of whom predicted a Trump loss to Hillary Clinton in 2016. In Brazil, although Bolsonaro was elected by a clear majority, his triumph has created a powerful emotional polarization in the country similar to what is happening in the U.S. Families, friends, and colleagues have split in a love/hate relationship toward the current presidents in the U.S. and Brazil, leaving broken friendships and family ties. Both presidents face enormous challenges to keep their campaign promises. In Brazil, a sluggish economy just recovering from a recession shows no signs of robust GDP growth for at least the next two years. High unemployment continues to devastate the consumer confidence index in Brazil, and Bolsonaro is suffering under his campaign boasts that his Economy Minister, Paulo Guedes, has all the answers to fix Brazil's slump. Additionally, there is no end to the destruction caused by corruption in Brazil. Some experts believe corruption to be the main reason why Brazil has one of the world's largest wealth inequality gaps. Political corruption robs government coffers of desperately needed funds for education and infrastructure, in addition to creating an atmosphere that encourages everyday citizens to underreport income and engage in the shadow economy, thereby sidestepping tax collectors and regulators. "Why should I be honest about reporting my income when nobody else is? The politicians are only going to steal the tax money anyway," one Brazilian doctor told me. While Bolsonaro has promised a housecleaning of corrupt officials, this is a cry Brazilians have heard from every previous administration. In only the first half-year of his presidency, he has made several missteps, such as nominating one of his sons to be the new ambassador to the U.S., despite the congressman's lack of diplomatic credentials. A June poll found that 51 percent of Brazilians now lack confidence in Bolsonaro's leadership. Just this week, Brazil issued regulations that open a fast-track to deport foreigners who are dangerous or have violated the constitution. The rules published on July 26 by Justice Minister Sérgio Moro define a dangerous person as anyone associated with terrorism or organized crime, in addition to football fans with a violent history. Journalists noted that this new regulation had coincidental timing for an American journalist who has come under fire from Moro for publishing private communications of Moro's. Nevertheless, despite overselling his leadership skills, Bolsonaro has made some economic progress. With the help of congressional leader Rodrigo Maia, a bill is moving forward in congress for the restructuring of Brazil's generous pension system. Most Brazilians recognize the long-term value of such a change, which can save the government billions of dollars over the next decade. At merely the possibility of pension reform, outside investors have responded positively, and the São Paulo stock exchange has performed brilliantly, reaching an all-time high earlier this month. In efforts to boost the economy, Bolsonaro and Paulo Guedes have taken the short-term approach advocated by the Chicago school of economics championed by Milton Friedman, who claimed the key to boosting a slugging economy was to cut government spending. Unfortunately many economists, such as Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman, disagree with this approach. They believe the most effective way to revive a slow economy is exactly the opposite, to spend more money not less. They say the government should be investing money in education and infrastructure projects, which can help put people back to work. Bolsonaro/Guedes have also talked about reducing business bureaucracy and revising the absurdly complex Brazilian tax system, which inhibits foreign and domestic business investment. It remains to be seen whether Bolsonaro has the political acumen to tackle this Godzilla-sized issue. Should Bolsonaro find a way to reform the tax system, the pension system, and curb the most egregious villains of political bribery and kickbacks – a tall order – his efforts could indeed show strong economic results in time for the next election in 2022. Meanwhile, some prominent leaders have already lost faith in Bolsonaro's efforts. The veteran of political/economic affairs, Joaquim Levy, has parted company with the president after being appointed head of the government's powerful development bank, BNDES. Levy and Bolsonaro butted heads over an appointment Levy made of a former employee of Lula's. When neither man refused to back down, Levy resigned his position at BNDES. Many observers believe Bolsonaro's biggest misstep has been his short-term approach to fixing the economy by loosening the laws protecting the Amazon rainforest. He and Guedes believe that by opening up more of the Amazon to logging, mining, and farming, we will see immediate economic stimulation. On July 28, the lead article of The New York Times detailed the vastly increased deforestation in the Amazon taking place under Bolsonaro's leadership. Environmental experts argue that the economic benefits of increased logging and mining in the Amazon are microscopic compared to the long-term damage to the environment. After pressure from European leaders at the recent G-20 meeting to do more to protect the world's largest rainforest, Bolsonaro echoed a patriotic response demanding that no one has the right to an opinion about the Amazon except Brazilians. In retaliation to worldwide criticism, Bolsonaro threatened to follow Trump's example and pull out of the Paris climate accord; however, Bolsonaro was persuaded by cooler heads to retract his threat. To prove who was in control of Brazil's Amazon region, he appointed a federal police officer with strong ties to agribusiness as head of FUNAI, the country's indigenous agency. In a further insult to the world's environmental leaders, not to mention common sense, Paulo Guedes held a news conference on July 25 in Manaus, the largest city in the rainforest, where he declared that since the Amazon forest is known for being the "lungs" of the world, Brazil should charge other countries for all the oxygen the forest produces. Bolsonaro/Guedes also have promised to finish paving BR-319, a controversial highway that cuts through the Amazon forest, linking Manaus to the state of Rondônia and the rest of the country. Inaugurated in 1976, BR-319 was abandoned by federal governments in the 1980s and again in the 1990s as far too costly and risky. Environmentalists believe the highway's completion will seal a death knoll on many indigenous populations by vastly facilitating the growth of the logging and mining industries. Several dozen heavily armed miners dressed in military fatigues invaded a Wajãpi village recently in the state of Amapá near the border of French Guiana and fatally stabbed one of the community's leaders. While Brazil's environmental protection policies are desperately lacking these days, not all the news here was bad. On the opening day of the 2019 Pan America Games in Lima, Peru, Brazilian Luisa Baptista, swam, biked, and ran her way to the gold medal in the women's triathlon. The silver medal went to Vittoria Lopes, another Brazilian. B. Michael Rubin is an American writer living in Brazil.

Brazil Has No Exemplary Past or Present. But What Lies Ahead for the Country?

For years, experts have debated what separates a developing country from a developed one. ...