How the hell do they run these operations or have this amount of gear safely in a favela?
When I did a full-on tourist experience of Rio, the guides were adamant that we not even go near any favela, as we'd immediately be robbed or worse. My understanding was that the crime in those areas was so astronomically high that nothing even resembling IT infrastructure could exist, as it would immediately be confiscated by the cartels operating there.
I'm glad that's not the case, but I wish the article had more information about how these people were able to operate safely.
Don't know much about Rio, but what I have seen and heard elsewhere in Latin America over the years.
Often times organized crimes substitutes an absent government and enforce their own set of law and order in the community. They can't afford to just rob the people blind as sometimes portrayed in media. They rely on a somewhat sybmiotic relationship with the "citizens" to act as messengers, human surveillance cameras, warning them from unknown people entering, making false statements to the police etc. The gangs are often much more effective at crime prevention than the government, they often invest more locally than the government.
A big chunk of the violet crimes comes from conflicts between gangs. If you are part of the community and stay in line you can actually be pretty safe. As a tourist on the other hand, you are fair game.
Obviously, it is not everything is rosy and nice, but in my opinion one of the big challenges in facing organized crime, is that the governments don't actually have a believable improvement to offer to the people, so the locals will often defend the current situation.
The interesting thing is that this is literally how all governments originally emerged.
The strongest local gang establishes a monopoly on violence in their territory. They then extract tribute (taxes) from the local population in various ways. If they get too greedy and extract too much, then eventually the plebs have little enough to lose to break their established order and fight the establishment gang. The most competent gangs find the equilibrium of taxation that is the maximum they can extract without suffocating production and innovation or creating an opposing revolution.
So, in locations where this has happened in modern states, it simply demonstrates that the "official" police and state have failed to manage their monopoly on violence properly, and are being actively out competed by a more effective organization that, if it continues to sustainably control its territory, will eventually become recognized as the new legitimate state.
The interesting thing is that this is literally how all governments originally emerged.
No - there are also revolutions and secessionist movements. Which already in their formation can be better thought of as mini-governments than "gangs" per se.
The basic problem with the idea of saying "it all started from gang rule" is that it brings to mind an image of criminal networks that just happened to fall into government-like activities (e.g. muscling out other gangs, running basic services) as a way of staying in business. Certainly true in some cases, but in most cases ... not a particularly meaningful description.
Our history books tend to glorify ancient gangs and call them things like "nobles" and "royalty". But if you look beneath the veneer, they were gangs very much like the street gangs and crime organizations we have now.
Actually it's written by anthropologists. If you look at how our species came to self-organize, there has always been a strong component of innate, voluntary cooperation (and of course violent subjugation as well). It's a mixed bag for sure, but I just think your characterization is way too oversimplified -- and it probably wouldn't get too far you tried to pass it by people who have devoted their lives to studying these things.
Who pays the anthropologists? And what cultural biases do they infuse in their work?
Modern gangs also sometimes organize via voluntary cooperation. Their ability to commit violence and control their territory is merely the foundation of their legitimacy in any non violent agreement. Same foundation as all "official" governments.
What you're saying applies to some modern and historical states, but not all. Would you consider the IRA in the early 1900s to be nothing more than a gang looking to control territory? Or were they an independence movement? What about the Continental Congress? What about the Viet Cong? The former two led to a democracy and the latter to an authoritarian dictatorship; all engaged in violence; but none was a gang whose primary motivation was to gain personal wealth by criminal activity. The IRA would be the closest to a "gang" but even there, the state they produced renounced violence.
I think the poster above is suggesting something much more nuanced than that. I think they're trying to say that the anthropologists do know what they research, to the best of their abilities. However, I think they're suggesting that anthropology projects are less likely to get funding if the likely reported results would heavily suggest theories that are ultimately critical of whichever seated establishment funded them in the first place.
Think about it this way - would you be willing to pay me 5% of your pay for this month to have me generate a report of your productivity, if you already knew I was highly likely to send a result that suggests your boss might want to fire you? If you were expected to pay me to do such a report for some reason, I think you'd prefer to pay me to report on someone else's productivity instead.
Basically it came down to an attempt at FUD: "Everyone is biased, you can't really trust anyone, therefore I don't need to acknowledge of any of the substantive points you are making."
I'm trying to imagine a good counterargument to anonporridge's actual stated position. If they're fundamentally wrong about violence as the legitimizing factor of authority, then there has to be some more important/more powerful legitimizing factor. Something that trumps violence without using violence or the threat of it.
What works in the place of violence? Escape? Maybe you can have a diaspora society willing to run away and rebuild in any territory it can ever reach and live in. Nullifying defense? Say you have some kind of structure or device that makes you invincible without fighting back and all violence against you is a pointless waste of energy. Then you could just be, and voluntarily agree to some social contract you never use violence to uphold. Love? Maybe all violence could hypothetically be stopped if the violent person's emotions could be negotiated with to circumvent their desires and everyone ends up happy. These all seem totally utopian to depend on 100% purely at a societal level, but these are all nonviolent approaches I know people take to resist violence on a practical 1 to 1 level.
The problem I see in anonporridge's argumentation is that it seems to ignore the question of legitimacy. Using terms like "gangs' implies criminality, right? (not native English speaker, correct me if I am wrong). Not all violence is criminal. Not all violence is perceived as illegitimate. There are scenarios of monopoly on violence I would certainly not label as 'gangs' - obeying the pharaoh because he is believed to be a God, respecting the leader of the tribe because he is the most experienced hunter who can use his knowledge and physical strength to provide food for the tribe...
I think that's a worthwhile concern too. How do we know the current authority is legitimate/illegitimate? What if the pharoah is really not a god but behaving more like a devil? What if the most experienced hunter is stuck in his ways and pushes aside new, innovative methods that are absolutely needed to help the tribe? Their perceived legitimacy is bottlenecked by their efficacy - and the efficacy of a leader seems to be some combination of peaceful trust and violent control.
> How do we know the current authority is legitimate/illegitimate?
That is a very good question and I do not have a good answer. Maybe subjectively... that legitimate power is perceived as justified. I grew up in a communist regime and had the opportunity to experience the difference between obeying rules because you are afraid not to vs obeying rules because they are at least somewhat correlated to what the majority considers to be good. Sure, even in democracy you obey some rules just because you are afraid not to, but you also understand that you live in an imperfect world that is not centered around you and you can accept some level of power you don't perceive as justified as long as it is about something like zoning rules and not your fundamental freedoms.
But it seems highly subjective... maybe if I grew up in ancient Egypt I would believe that the pharaoh has the right do whatever he pleases and who am I to judge whether it is evil or not.
I personally believe in something like the "Divine Right of Kings" or the "Mandate of Heaven". So basically I think the current ruler of a locale, even a drug cartel in its territory considered criminal by a larger government, is on some level be it great or small, the legitimate authority for that time because of providence, and their legitimacy can be fortified by the leader's justice or weakened by a lack thereof. How they treat people irrespective of what the local policy is is one important aspect of justice, and this is why I think democracy can feel like you describe, because the system was at least set up with the intention of serving a majority of the people (gerrymandering not withstanding). Compare that to 20th century attempts to implement communism which claims to enact another aspect of justice (striving for equality for the worker; fairness), and in practice created a system where the state ruled with an unjust level of fear. With those in light I can understand why different people would espouse these systems of government. It's complicated, it's wrapped up in current ideological battles, but I think these philosophical quandries point beyond our millieu, to meanings and maxims that can help us become better people.
Everyone is a slave to their incentives. You have to weed through multiple narratives of different perspectives if you want a chance of piecing together "the truth", whatever that actually means.
I get it; you want to avoid circularity. Unfortunately there's always going to be some in our conjectures, because we're all humans almost always trying to justify some set of implementations of human societies because we like the incentivized benefits of collective organization. People reach for something they think is truer than their own context to guide them. For vanusa, that's the value of knowledge, developed in academic institutions. I don't blame them for that.
I think "the truth" means what brings us simultaneously to the greatest understanding, peace, respect for existence and consciousness, freedom from misery, and victory over cruelty. Anything that, over the long run, takes these away in greater amounts than it gives them back is a falsehood. If truth is not this thing, then why ought we seek it in the first place? I think that's how we can all be less of a slave to our incentives (except the incentive for the truth), even if they are to spread FUD and assert our own objective correctness :>
History classes in primary and secondary school are often extremely light on any criticism of the own nations past if mentioned at all. In my own case in Switzerland, some things we were taught were outright lies, fabricated by a historian from Zürich almost a century earlier to promote patriotism. The European colonial period is another thing that got completely misrepresented for example.
...and before those proto-gangs, you had extend families acting as a power structure. (and many places still have them, competing against gangs/state/corporations, with a noticeable organisation efficiency cost from murky loyalties)
Apropos, I read some anthropology for my PhD, it became quite common to call the German nobility of the Middle Ages warlords, to stress the commonality between today's criminal regimes.
"They then extract tribute (taxes) from the local population in various ways."
And in modern observations, if they emerged out of drug dealing, there's even the possibility (though that's certainly not a given) that they never diversify into tribute/protection, while still providing order.
It would be the exact same thing as the "we done do drugs!" ethics portrayed in The Goodfather, only reversed. I wouldn't even consider that all too unlikely, because violent gangsters want to consider themselves as the good guys just like everyone else, and adhering to a code that rules out some forms of unethical behavior goes a long way for that.
This is very true and it paints a dim view on the XXI century- we are going to be ruled by thugs and gangsters because we “vote” them in, until it’s too late.
Democracy only works well if serving the people and giving them a strong voice and control accrues more power to the state than alternative forms of governance.
If the people, or more specifically the democratic majority, end up becoming more extractive than they are productive towards enhancing their state's power, then eventually some alternative organizing governance structure will emerge that accumulates power more effectively.
This isn't making an ethical judgement about one system or another, just an observation on what appears to be base level reality.
I mean, the dynamic of people acting as watchdogs and the community bundling together can be noticed in a lot of villages over the world, I think. Of course, the special thing about the Favelas and Mafia-controlled areas is the violence and fear.
I am from Brazil and to be honest the government push for this is kinda silly. There are other problems to solve first.
There was an event I participated about this, I was teaching about gamedev using opensource tools, a lot of people paid to go, the government then brought in a ton of people from the favelas as part of their "digital inclusion" program, although I was happy to teach them, later I heard many of them just stole people's computers, mouses, keyboards, etc... and bolted, a good chunk of the "digital inclusion" people that went for free, didn't sit in a single workshop, instead they just disappeared, and a ton of equipment with them.
Even outside favelas, our infrastructure is just shit too, I work from home and losing power and internet is a constant threat, sometimes water goes out too.
And corruption in general just runs deep, I know a TV producer that was hired to make an Ad for the government, he had to record a government building inside a favela, to make the ad for the government, yet the local government guy wouldn't let him inside to make the recording the government was demanding, he had to approach a congressman about it, and the guy just flat demanded 10k to "do his thing" and make it work.
He did paid the guy, then after that the drug lord demanded another 10k to allow the TV crew inside the favela without being shot.
After he recorded it, the congressman was seen with a new car... meanwhile the drug lord seemly dunked the entire 10k into meat, charcoal and booze and threw a huge barbecue party to the locals.
> After he recorded it, the congressman was seen with a new car... meanwhile the drug lord seemly dunked the entire 10k into meat, charcoal and booze and threw a huge barbecue party to the locals.
It seems to me that one care more about his constituents that the other!
Something interesting in American history circa a century ago was the party machine, which combined both roles into one. The fact that it's not around today could be a sign of either a decline in corruption, or a decline in the importance of getting voters to be really strongly on your side (as opposed to being 1% less bad than the other candidate).
This might sound out of left field but (hear me out) I think the decline is due in large part to gerrymandering. 100 years ago you had a lot of pretty competitive races where party control might switch often. It was incumbent on the party machine you mention to make sure all its supporters got out. You'd usually see the party rally around whoever won the primary, because there was still another election to win.
Fast forward through some pretty aggressive and technologically advanced gerrymandering, and something like 90% of congressional seats are pretty well insulated from drastic party changes election over election. The primary becomes the only election that matters for most districts, which pushes both parties to the extremes. Because the primary is the only one that matters, there is little to no incentive to rally around your chosen candidate - you just fight that much harder for your favorite one next time.
Solidifying party control in most districts has somewhat paradoxically weakened party control over the process while simultaneously pushing elected candidates to the extremes.
You make a very good point about the nascent extremism - as primaries become the only elections that matter, and because you need extreme candidates to flip those locked districts, there is little reward in moderation. I find it funny how Republicans embraced extremism while Democrats seem to be more averse to it, even though they'd have much to gain in this scenario.
This is what I really like about Ireland's elections - they are so effective in weeding out extremists that the two dominant political forces are almost indistinguishable. It's, perhaps, too efficient in that, but it also seems to be extremely safe and long-term stable.
From my comfy first world perspective (far from Silicon Valley level, but still..) I consider gaming an addiction not without its own perils. But if it substitutes widespread substance addiction, even if only in part, it is a big step forward. Gaming can be a powerful push towards increased digital literacy, particularly for gamers with low buying power. There's a much wider and more healthy path from purely consumptive gaming to being productive in the field of the digital than from purely consumptive substance abuse to being productive in the field of chemistry or whatever (even if the very well-told fiction of Breaking Bad might suggest otherwise). It's certainly no substitute for infrastructure, order and education, but that doesn't necessarily imply that investment in one cannot be more worthwhile than investment in the other. Don't skip on the hanging fruits in one field because you haven't solved all hard problems in the other.
Having been a teacher for unemployed people that event just sounds like it was planned(unintentionally) to fail for these "inclusives".
If a sub-group (esp with people who probably knows each other) comes in with a far lower general skill level it's very easy to lose them to an inadequacy feeling that makes them give up if they expect to fail, being a teacher this is very very hard to notice because in a mixed group the top and middle percentages will ask questions and generally feel as "getting it" but those already feeling stupid often doesn't dare ask questions (but often nod or similar simulating being "smart" to not stand out).
Cars in Brazil are more expensive than in the USA. For 10K you can't buy even the cheapest car.
10K is not even a lot of money, most professionals earn more than that per month (I am thinking that's 10K Reais, not Dollars... with the devaluation of the currency, 10K dollars would actually be a lot of money now, around 55K reais... it used to be closer to 1-to-1 not long ago!).
He is not a genocide but is also a corrupt guy in a corrupt party (although it's clear he will be better for the working class than Bolsonaro, but I bet even your mother as President would be better for the working class than Bolsonaro). Option #3 (Sérgio Moro) has also been shown to work outside the law, so the "corrupt" label aplies to him as well. No other candidate has any chances of winning.
Regardless of the president, the people are going to elect the very same senators and Congressman, so there is just no hope.
I lived at the edge of 2 favellas for a couple of months as part of my short life in Brazil. I can tell you, while their houses are small and simple made they often have high tech in their houses. Partly due to the fact that their government had programs allowing them to buy it cheaply.
From my limited experience the problem wasn’t so much that tech wasn’t or couldn’t be available but that a lot of them couldn’t even read.
They provide electricity tapped from the net and everything.
Also remember that for these gangs peace is more interesting and profitable than a lot of crime and chaos. Especially over the long run.
What would be impossible for most of us, but some born and raised there, have no problem to spend their live living there, in their community. Another reason: The rent is cheap, energy and internet is "for free".
> these gangs peace is more interesting and profitable than a lot of crime and chaos
I think it is enlightening to look at these sort of situations through the lens of feudalism. Criminal gangs are not sociopathic comic book villains interested in violence for the fun of it, they are more like landlords, and are in it for money, security, and a sense of community. Medieval kings, the Italian/American/Japanese mafias, South/Central American drug cartels, and Middle Eastern/African "warlords" are all cut from the same cloth.
That is an insane perspective. The favelas are a site of extreme exploitation, no matter how you try to rationalize it.
This article is obviously propaganda meant to counter the headlines about the Worker’s Party leading in the polls.
The working people of Brazil have suffered tremendously under Bolsanaro’s neoliberal government and Lula (Worker’s Party candidate who Bolsanaro imprisoned for 2 years on bogus charges) has a big lead. After the recent socialist victories in Chile and Bolivia (following the U.S.-assisted coup), western states will do everything they can to prevent the Worker’s Party from retaking power in Brazil. Expect more of this and other hi-jinx as the Fall election nears. It’s going to be a messy one.
I don't think I disagree with you at all. I do not mean to downplay the harm done by organized crime, just to view the motivations of criminals from a materialist perspective. We can only pray that the CIA doesn't do to Lula what they did to Allende.
Allende existed in a different time and place. He was in contempt of Chile's Congress due to alleged violations of Chile's Constitution, was supported by Marxist paramilitaries being supported by the USSR, and had praised the Communist revolution in Cuba and the dictator that it had brought to power.
I don't think they meant it was not exploitative when they compared it to Feudalism, hopefully everyone agrees that feudalism is extremely exploitative.
I agree however that what was done to Lula is so bad it's got to be one of the worst affronts to democracy anywhere. It's a shame our media give it so little attention.
There is absolutely no evidence for any of this global "neoliberal" conspiracy theory.
The Western states have been embracing social democracy, predicated on forced income redistribution - the very opposite of "neoliberalism" - at an unprecedented rate:
These ideological narratives that claim that political parties which advocate for more government power, are the underdog, going up against powerful forces who prefer free markets, looks like nothing more than propaganda to entrench and expand the power of the state and its functionaries.
> The Western states have been embracing social democracy
No, they haven't. Stop peddling this obvious bullshit based on a single figure stretched all the way to the moon. Social spending != social democracy. Social spending != welfare state.
As I've asked for previously, and what you always - unsurprisingly - fail to provide: please present a single reputable, non-free-market think-tank, source that agrees that the "Western states" have been embracing social democracy the last few decades.
High levels of social spending is indeed a hallmark of social democracy.
The creation of major new social welfare programs, like Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, and TANF, since 1960, corresponds with a massive increase in the share of economic output expropriated by the state for the purpose of expending it on social programs.
Claiming Western states did not experience a transition to a more social democratic economic model, amidst the creation of major social welfare programs, and a massive increase in social welfare spending, is insane gaslighting.
>>a single figure
What an incredibly disingenuous way to characterize the share of GDP spent on government social welfare programs.
This is an all-encompassing figure that encapsulates every major type of social democratic spending.
Claiming that me using this extremely revealing macro-economic statistic, as evidence of the rise of social democracy, as:
"peddling this obvious bullshit based on a single figure stretched all the way to the moon"
is a desperate attempt to gaslight the public to hide reality from it.
>>non-free-market think-tank
Any think tank worth its salt is pro-free-market. Non-free-market think tanks are ideologically-motivated crank organizations, and usually on the payroll of the direct beneficiaries of social democracy - public sector unions.
Whether social democracy ideologues/apologists will admit that Western states experienced a massive transition to a more social democratic economic model over the last 60 years, doesn't change what the evidence, and any remotely sane analysis of it, shows.
Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence. You have provided none.
Where's the reputable source that can back up your claims with more than just an outlandishly superficial and biased interpretation of a single figure?
> extremely revealing macro-economic statistic, as evidence of the rise of social democracy
No, it just isn't. If it was true, you wouldn't have any problem at all providing a reputable source agreeing with your claim. But you clearly do.
> Any think tank worth its salt is pro-free-market. Non-free-market think tanks are ideologically-motivated crank organizations, and usually on the payroll of the direct beneficiaries of social democracy - public sector unions.
>>Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence. You have provided none.
You have yet to explain what is extraordinary about my claim, besides your baseless claim that the intellectual authorities you defer to haven't concurred with the assertion.
The statistics speak for themselves, and don't need confirmation from the state apparatus' amen corner to be believed.
>>outlandishly superficial and biased interpretation of a single figure?
Again with your absurdly disingenuous characterization of the share of GDP spent on government social welfare programs.
One more time:
This is an all-encompassing figure that is constituted solely by different types of social democratic spending, and encapsulates every major type of social democratic spending.
Claiming that me using this extremely revealing macro-economic statistic, as evidence of the rise of social democracy, as:
"an outlandishly superficial and biased interpretation"
is a desperate attempt to gaslight the public to hide reality from it.
> This is an all-encompassing figure that is constituted solely by different types of social democratic spending, and encapsulates every major type of social democratic spending.
No, it's not. That's a superficial and biased interpretation. There's a minimum threshold to be met if one is to spend energy on a reply, hence the need for something more than just your hot take, especially since your credibility is already very low because of your union conspiracy ramblings.
One more time:
If that is such an obviously correct interpretation as you suggest, please provide reputable sources that agree with your claim, after that we can dive deeper into other possible causes to an increased social spending without that being "an embrace of social democracy".
>>No, it's not. That's a superficial and biased interpretation.
Your characterization is absolute nonsense, and I've already explained exactly why.
>>especially since your credibility is already very low because of your union conspiracy ramblings.
I've addressed this disingenuous criticism before:
Your pithy response to my argument that unionized news staff have an economic interest in promoting left wing political ideas - when I've elaborated at length as to why I believe this is the case - suggests you're approaching this issue very emotionally, and not in a good faith attempt to open-mindedly explore what I'm saying to see if it's true.
You realize that name-calling and sophistry is not debate, right? You can't just bully people into adopting your interpretation of the world.
Asserting that a claim is "a superficial and biased interpretation" or "conspiracy ramblings", is not evidence. It's just a baseless opinion, and in terms of substance, the equivalent of name-calling - an attempt to appeal to people's emotions to manipulate them into believing something, instead of convincing them by presenting a logical argument.
>>we can dive deeper into other possible causes to an increased social spending without that being "an embrace of social democracy".
We can dive deeper in your mental gymnastics, as you try to maintain "neoliberalism" has been ascendant, whilst the economy has become more social democratically structured? It's undeniable that the West has massively moved toward a more social democratic economic model.
That entire reply is totally devoid of any substance whatsoever. I assume you're not planning to provide any reputable source, just keep repeating your own authoritative assertion like your last sentence?
> It's undeniable that the West has massively moved toward a more social democratic economic model.
If it's undeniable, you shouldn't be the only one claiming this. Not even conservatives (in Europe at least) are saying this, even though it would be mana from heaven for them if it was true.
I've already provided the substance. Now I'm just explaining that your grandiose denunciations are without substance.
Once more:
Asserting that a claim is "a superficial and biased interpretation" or "conspiracy ramblings", is not evidence. It's just a baseless opinion, and in terms of substance, the equivalent of name-calling - an attempt to appeal to people's emotions to manipulate them into believing something, instead of convincing them by presenting a logical argument.
Please focus on providing those sources rather than trying to derail with tone policing.
To reiterate:
If it's undeniable, you shouldn't be the only one claiming this. Not even conservatives (in Europe at least) are saying this, even though it would be manna from heaven for them if it was true.
I am not policing your tone. I am policing the content of your comments, which are appeals to emotion that are without substance. They belie disingenuity.
What is the point of me digging up a source when you've completely dismissed clear macroeconomic evidence of a shift to a more social democratic economic structure?
How many examples would I need to dig up of academic authorities concurring on what the statistics clearly show, before you concede I am right?
Still no sources. Just talk and repeating your own interpretation as authoritative.
> which are appeals to emotion that are without substance
No, they are repeated appeals for source to an extraordinary claim which obviously would be more commonplace if it was true since large political camps would have a lot to gain from it. But the lack thereof says a lot, that's why I keep requesting a reputable source to back up your claim that goes deeper than a superficial glance at a social spending figure.
> How many examples would I need to dig up of academic authorities concurring on what the statistics clearly show, before you concede I am right?
You can start with providing a single one?
As much as I dislike linking to this article it's relevant to this because it shows how not even a right-wing pseudo-intellectual media-outfit that certainly can't be dismissed as having a "union-led left-wing bias" agrees with your claim:
"Starting in the 1970s, such things as foreign competition, mass immigration from developing countries, automation, and the growing financialization of economic power undermined this progress. In the United States, data from the Census Bureau show that the share of national income going to the middle 60 percent of households has fallen to a record low since the 1970s. Wealth gains in recent decades have gone overwhelmingly to the top one percent of households, and especially to the top 0.5 percent. Social mobility has declined in over two-thirds of European Union countries, including Sweden. Across the 36 wealthier countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the richest citizens have taken an ever-greater share of national GDP while the middle class has shrunk. Much of the global middle class is heavily in debt—mainly because of high housing costs—and “looks increasingly like a boat in rocky waters,” suggests the OECD."
When will you concede that you're are practicing dogmatism because of your ideological bias?
>>Just talk and repeating your own interpretation as authoritative.
I provided a source to the data.
People are free to draw their own interpretations from the macroeconomic data I presented, which shows, indisputably, a massive shift to a more social democratic economic model.
>>they are repeated appeals for source to an extraordinary claim
I provided a source for the data that verifies my claim.
You have not explained at all what is extraordinary about characterizing the creation of sweeping social welfare programs, and an associated massive rise in the share of GDP expropriated by the state for social welfare spending, as "a dramatic shift to a more social democratic economic model".
>>which obviously would be more commonplace if it was true since large political camps would have a lot to gain from it.
There is no "large political camp" that stands to gain from aggressively advocating a reduction in government power, including so-called right-wing parties, under whom the share of GDP expended on social welfare programs has rapidly increased, as major new expansions of the social welfare system has been implemented (e.g. Medicare D under Bush).
All embarking on any genuine campaign to reduce government spending would do is draw the ire of the very powerful public sector unions, whose agendas you aggressively champion in our discussion, and ensure a massive election defeat.
>>You can start with providing a single one?
What difference would it make if I dig up one source? Would it lead to you agreeing with me? If not, this is just an exercise in deflection from you.
If you tell me how many sources it will take, for you to agree with me, then I might take the time to dig them up.
>>In the United States, data from the Census Bureau show that the share of national income going to the middle 60 percent of households has fallen to a record low since the 1970s
This characterizes an outcome, not a govermment policy. The government policy of expending economic output on social welfare programs was expanded all through the last 60 years.
Your dogmatic and ideologically motivated insistence that social democracy will reduce income inequality is completely unsubstantiated, and therefore a rise in income inequality in no way contradicts the assertion that the economy transitioned to a more social democratic model.
No you haven't. Just a figure and your own interpretation of it.
> which shows, indisputably, a massive shift to a more social democratic economic model.
No, it doesn't. It's exactly this interpretation that need to be backed up, not the figure.
You are making a claim, an interpretation, that no one else makes. So the burden of evidence is on you. This is common sense. Stop delaying and start providing.
> There is no "large political camp" that stands to gain from aggressively advocating a reduction in government power
Of course they are large political camp that would love to blame the recent increases in inequality and more on an "embrace of social democracy". Stop lying to save face.
> What difference would it make if I dig up one source? Would it lead to you agreeing with me? If not, this is just an exercise in deflection from you.
Are you seriously asking why it makes difference to provide sources for unique claims that runs contrary to the established consensus?
> If you tell me how many sources it will take, for you to agree with me, then I might take the time to dig them up.
This has nothing to do with a certain quantity of sources. What an absurdly anti-intellectual thing to say.
> This characterizes an outcome, not a govermment policy.
Stop cherry-picking. That article is very clear that it doesn't agree with your assertion. It asked what happened to social democracy and very clearly implying that it has gotten off its original path in recent times. That doesn't square with your claim that social democracy has instead been embraced during that time.
I can provide even more non-academic and academic sources into the decline of social democracy if you'd like, there's loads of them. But somehow you can't even provide a single one supporting your exact opposite claim? This is what makes it extra-ordinary.
"Recent electoral results reveal a pronounced decline in the fortunes of Social Democratic parties. Much of the decline debate has revolved around their rightward policy shifts, which have turned Social Democrats away from their founding principle of equality in an age of increasing inequality. Thus, this article examines the interconnections of these major changes in the Western political economy. In doing so, it contributes to the identification of income inequality as a key mechanism moderating Social Democratic policy offerings and their support. It does so through aggregate-level election results and individual-level survey responses on a sample of 22 advanced democracies, over 336 elections, from 1965–2019. Results reveal that rightward economic movements of Social Democrats significantly reduce their vote share under higher levels of income inequality or when they are combined with rightward socio-cultural movements. The findings provide an important explanation for the pronounced electoral decline of Social Democratic parties."
Depends on the city/country, but there's also an argument affecting tourists is just not worth it.
Money isn't the goal, money + little trouble is the goal. If a city is a big tourist destination, the bad press, the potential involvement of foreign nations, the outcry from the tourism industry, etc are all good reasons for local law enforcement to strike back hard.
Especially if overwhelmed, it's very possible local law enforcement wont give the same weight to an investigation involving only locals and one involving a foreigner, especially if the eyes of, say, Germany are staring at you.
This article is obviously propaganda meant to counter the headlines about the Worker’s Party leading in the polls.
The working people of Brazil have suffered tremendously under Bolsanaro’s neoliberal government and Lula (Worker’s Party candidate who Bolsanaro imprisoned for 2 years on bogus charges) has a big lead. After the recent socialist victories in Chile and Bolivia (following the U.S.-assisted coup), western states will do everything they can to prevent the Worker’s Party from retaking power in Brazil. Expect more of this and other hi-jinx as the Fall election nears. It’s going to be a messy one.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MJm08zHWaKA
My ex girlfriend lived in Brazil for ~10 years and her job was running tours to the favelas. She told me there were fairly strict rules about this sort of thing.
The gangs there cared about drugs and making money. As long as you weren't there interfering with them making money, they didn't really care about you as a tourist. They might get a phone or pocket change from you but why waste time and money on just that? Bigger fish to fry.
In all the years my ex hungout and worked in the favela, not one bad thing happened to her. Which surprised the hell out of me. (She was a foreigner but spoke the language)
I'm from Mexico— there's plenty of "bad places" there too.
You really don't want something bad to happen to a tourist, so you focus on the worst-case scenario. It akin to a children and streets; it's easier to tell children to avoid crossing a street and not have to worry, even if statistically it's pretty unlikely an accident would happen.
Moreover, since the news largely focuses on the tragedies, it's easy to get an inflated sense of danger. I know people who live in Culiacán, right in the center of the Sinaloa Cartel. They'll tell me every day in the news someone is dead.
Nonetheless, they live worry-free, peaceful lives. In a city of 1 million, and especially if you're not involved with cartels, even considering the homicide rates are much higher than they should, it's very unlikely something bad will happen to you.
I wouldn't say so. I've never been to Mazatlán, but I've heard it's quite nice.
IMO there aren't "bad cities" in Mexico, but cities might have neighborhoods or areas to avoid. I know people in Culiacán, famously at the center of the Sinaloa Cartel and often in the news as a dangerous place. They live a tranquil life, like anyone else would. What they complain most about is just how hot it gets in the summer.
Going back to my point though if a friend were visiting I'd just tell them to stick to Mazatlán or other known touristy places. Both for the peace of mind and because its easier to get around with English.
One should still not simply walk into a Favela as a tourist. I have family in Brazil (Sao Paulo) and a majority had different experiences even when being careful.
Regarding "Not wasting time and money", it goes quick. A guy on a motorbike with a gun, a car that stops and 3 people jump you etc.
I love Brazil, the people, the music, the landscape, the farova, but criminality is a problem (more then 50 000 homicides per year).
Tourists are highly likely to have money in their pockets and expensive gadgets with them, so they tend to be easy targets.
Someone foreign who learns the "ways" of the locals would easily be able to mingle though and go mostly unnoticed (Brazil has had peoples of all races for a long time, it's not like you stand out much by being blonde or asian, for example). And any local will immediately tell you to never walk around with money or expensive devices, and specially, never flash them around no matter where you go (near favelas there's a lot of unemployed/poor/desperate people - no one wants to live in one... so it ends up being a lot more dangerous in general than anywhere else).
I lived in a favela in Rio Comprido controlled by comando vermelho (tropa 17) all 2019/2020.. I used to visit my gf and her family, at first but then when the pandemic happened I rented the 'apartment' underneath their 'apartment'.
Everyday I would walk past the the checkpoint with like a 15 year old guy with an extened clip glock behind a makeshift cement barrier.
The internet situation was pretty weird, some telecom, that I could barely get any info on made a deal with the comando to provide everyone with internet. every month I would walk up with my gf further up the hill where the C.V. headquarters were and we would pay I think about 20 dollars to the boss, this big fat black guy with a revolver and a metal cash box, and a list on paper of all the families that paid, and what speed/tier they paid for, I opted for the 30 dollar a month ultrafast bandwidth(i didnt notice a difference), but it was fast enough for my gf who was Gold in League of Legends to have 40 ping.
This was not one of the major telecoms, and they had some sort of deal with the C.V. and when the internet would fuck up the Commando even had technicians
across the way from the checkpoint CV is selling drugs on a ping pong table, one day when my gf+her family was out of town I just had to go see what the deal was and bought a little bit of everything
CV stands for Comando vermelho(red command) and PR stands for the favela Paula Ramos..
CV also made money from the little busses that i took to come and go, the other way they make lots of money is selling gas, and selling guns to bandits.
EDIT: Also forgot to mention I never felt unsafe at all, and have been robbed only outside of the favela.. If there is any crime or stuff like that the comando would kill the robber or thieves. I only felt unsafe when the police/bope would come on raids, because they didnt get their monthly bribe.
Thanks for the local insight. I found it very interesting. How did they handle the pandemic? Where did you end up moving to and what was the reason you decided to move?
Well.. when the pandemic first started people were more wild, we all had masks and hand gel everywhere before they started doing it even in USA. My gf's parents were evangelical christinans so they believed all sorts of wild stuff, and I just went with it. After a week or two the family got more lax because of birthdays and family events and it was pretty much unavoidable, we all got covid. I was coughing for a day, and my gf couldnt taste anything for a few days, the rest of the family was fine. maybe a month after that,everyone said fuck it and things went back to normal more or less. It was pretty funny seeing the Comando enforce mask wearing when the government didn't. I ended up not staying with my gf, COVID and cabin fever and living under her parents house really screwed up our relationship.
I spent four years in Rio Comprido/Tijuca and left when I was six, Rua Conselheiro Barros near Rua do Bispo, not quite the favela there. I lived in various other places in Brazil too and got to visit and stay in many of "sketchy" places because of my parents' work.
we probably walked around the same areas of Rio Comprido, I used to take the bus down from Paula Ramos to go to the grocery store and ATM every week or take the bus to the lagoa for jogging. I think most of Rio Comprido is safe, there is bandits but they go to copa to rob people im sure
quite a bit of marijuana wrapped in saran wrap, and clumps of cocaine in little plastic tubes. The weed is pretty poor quality(oldish filled with seeds), but I like poor quality weed because I don't like to be too stoned. I am not an expert on coke, and tossed it after a few sniffs, I think it was pretty good quality, and at 2-3 dollars a gram its a steal, but I didn't want to be nuts when my gf's parents came back the next day. They are also evangelical christians and probably not okay with my curiosity so i flushed it.
if you live there and you earn your respect from the community, you are safe. In most favelas, criminals are not allowed to steal from other residents. They have their own rules. The real metaverse.
The drug dealers for all the bad they do they also support and help the community a lot. This is part of their strategy, the community in turn protect them, hide them. In many favelas the drug lord is the law, and the law is don't poop where you eat. You may be able to steal from people outside the favela but not inside the favela, if you do the punishment can be medieval, like cut hands or even death. It's not only for residents though. Even as a tourist you are probably safe in a favela, it's their interest you feel safe so you don't feel intimidated to go buy drugs. But again after living in Rio and São Paulo for many years I wouldn't recommend anyone to do that.
I spent some years in Sao Paulo and in Rio too. I had many friends and visited almost daily the Morro do Cantagalo, a huge favela there. You can live pretty well there, but they make sure that you know who is the boss there.
What means legal? It is part of Brazil, and therefore the same rules applies there, so its not legal. If there is murder in Favela that the Police cannot investigate and punish the responsible for that? For sure. Specially if who died was criminal.
no, more like a meta universe. Running inside Brazil, but with their own set of rules and tradition. For some it is a Dystopian reality. For others, just another day in the office.
Any time you hear those extremes about any place - e.g., lots of people say it about parts of American cities - it's nonsense. People live there; they are biologically the same as you; they live, breathe and think, they not complete idiots. They aren't organizing, tolerating or sticking around a situation like that.
(That said, I know nothing about favelas or what is wise or unwise to do in them.)
>lots of people say it about parts of American cities - it's nonsense
In general (although it used to be truer).
That said, there are many places in US cities where I'd pretty strongly recommend against looking out of place, wandering around like a clueless tourist, late at night.
No, you probably won't be shot. But being robbed isn't out of the question.
What is almost certainly true is you're pretty safe most places if you blend in reasonably, keep valuables hidden, and look like you know what you're doing.
> there are many places in US cities where I'd pretty strongly recommend against looking out of place, wandering around like a clueless tourist, late at night.
We can always construct hypothetical situations that meet some criteria. I wouldn't recommend that in any part of any city.
I mean, assuming your experiences are shared to some extent with everyone else's is a pretty human thing to do. It's also a particularly American thing to do, perhaps for cultural reasons.
My point is this isn't a hypothetical; you can walk around Tokyo at night and be fine.
> I mean, assuming your experiences are shared to some extent with everyone else's is a pretty human thing to do. It's also a particularly American thing to do, perhaps for cultural reasons.
You really have no idea what you are talking about, but don't let it stop you.
I think you're the one who has no idea what you are talking about and should just accept that you're wrong.
> I wouldn't recommend [wandering around like a clueless tourist, late at night] in any part of any city.
I have lived in Tokyo, NYC, San Francisco for at least 2 years each. Tokyo is a concrete and non-hypothetical counterexample to your proposition.
> We can always construct hypothetical situations that meet some criteria.
How is not recommending going to dangerous neighborhoods in America a hypothetical situation? There is statistical data and crime maps. You cannot deny that.
Where I live now, you can wander around at night no problem. A cop might get suspicious and hassle you is about the worst.
I have also lived in places where not only would I advise more-vulnerable people against going out at night, I wouldn't go wander around myself either.
But yes the odds of being a victim aren't leaping from zero to 100 percent between these nighborhoods. More like aceptably low to unacceptably high.
This is pretty wild and an exaggeration. You’ll get robbed if you’re not a local, sure.
Crime in the favelas is again afaik a very local thing. I’ve had lunch and dinner in restaurants in favelas and I know there’s a favela in Rio where people go for night life.
Ofc I am Brazilian and have family there.
A lot of these favelas the gang that controls them holds the peace. As a gringo you’d get robbed immediately sure, but for locals? The favelas are not some insane dystopian nightmare for many people who live in them. They’re just poor places, shanty towns.
There are some YouTuber travel channels that have fascinating on the ground footage of the favelas in Brazil. It's not as extreme as you think. I very much recommend these two:
> My understanding was that the crime in those areas was so astronomically high that nothing even resembling IT infrastructure could exist, as it would immediately be confiscated by the cartels operating there.
Your understanding appears to be empirically wrong. The thing about poverty is that you learn to depend on those around you, and gang membership aligns by neighborhood or even specific blocks.
Outsiders may be fair game, but locals have built relationships within the community over years. The armed gang member may feel some loyalty to the organization that let him play games when he was 10, and he has a cousin/friend on the eSports team. There are very few secrets in such close-knit communities you cannot secretly steal and fence the equipment without someone knowing - outsiders can't either because there is always someone keeping vigilance (hence the guns).
I don’t have first-hand knowledge of this but according to what I have read about the favelas it’s like a shadow society basically. I.e. they have their own rules, companies, infrastructure. IIRC the book I read it in was probably Stewart Brand’s “Whole Earth Discipline”.
I was on tour with a local guide, in 3 favelas and I felt safe. There is a lot of favelas, some are better and some are worse. Some are basically "safe" when you live there, normal shops, schools and so on. Petty crime is often worse in the good streets below, because thugs and kids go to steel from tourists. I would not go the by my self at night. But there are big differences between favelas.
> How the hell do they run these operations or have this amount of gear safely in a favela?
BTW Netflix even produced a whole 4-season dystopian scifi TV show about how resourceful young people from Brazil's favelas can be - "3%". It's quite watchable and provides some interesting clues.
Not to claim that what you were told isn’t true, but when people make such claims, it is often the case that they have little experience going into those areas themselves, and are simply relaying the stereotypes.
This article is obviously propaganda meant to counter the headlines about the Worker’s Party leading in the polls.
The working people of Brazil have suffered tremendously under Bolsanaro’s neoliberal government and Lula (Worker’s Party candidate who Bolsanaro imprisoned for 2 years on bogus charges) has a big lead. After the recent socialist victories in Chile and Bolivia (following the U.S.-assisted coup), western states will do everything they can to prevent the Worker’s Party from retaking power in Brazil. Expect more of this and other hi-jinx as the Fall election nears. It’s going to be a messy one.
Its exaggerated, there would probably be no remedy for you if it occurred but that doesn't mean people don't have other shit going on.
Most “dangerous ghettos” are the same way. If people dont have beef with you they arent just looking to take advantage. A sociopathic person with a badge is much more dangerous because they dont have to collaborate at all, unlike civilians.
This is, sorry, the same BS that I hear over and over, and over and over. This is alright, it's pretty good that it's happening, but that's the extent of it. Just good, just alright. The need for decent public education at the elementary level is still needed, and is what is really needed. Nothing else will do. Some people, very few, will rise out of poverty by becoming famouse or... never mind, I won't bother. I'm actually tired of these stories highlighting the success of a few people where millions live without good decent basic education and good decent basic healthcare. At this rate Brazil will take a century to get rid of its ghastly inequality levels. People in favelas have had cable tv, internet access, cell phones, etc, for decades now. They still live in gang controlled, gang-war torn places where people, often times kids, getting shot with AK-47 or M4 (gang vs police weaponry) stray bullets is normal. Really, normal. Yeah, some guy having access to the latest Occulus is really changing this reality. Sorry for the rant... but for the past 20 years I haven't been convinced that there's another solution other than having good and decent basic public education for everyone. Really sorry, but as a brazilian, it hurts sometimes.
There's this huge social and economic change in Brazil over the last 10 or so years where dozens of millions of people are acceding to the digital world; broadband (usually 4G) access to the internet is becoming part of their daily lives. This has huge consequences and tons of opportunity. Nubank is a quick example I can think of that knew how to take advantage of this movement and is now a billion-dollar company expanding through all Latam.
But no, instead they decide to spotlight game streamers.
but just because you don't respect game streamers doesn't mean that it doesn't have huge consequences and opportunities too.
the people doing that have income and access to capital now whether a bank showed up or not, which is way better than any neobank fintech company can achieve.
in the past, access to capital or electronic payments meant "bank the unbanked", now it doesn't mean that so there's no reason to cling to that goal.
Sorry, but this has nothing to do with whether I respect streamers or not.
Streamers produce entertainment. That's fine, I'm all for entertainment -- I pay for Netflix, for instance. But it is just entertainment. You can't have a strong economy based on producing entertainment alone. We need jobs that produce real-life value at some point.
In other words, kudos to the dude in the favela making money out of streaming, good for him. It's just _not_ something that can be scaled and applied to the millions of people living in favelas that need a good job (or any job really).
as someone who had a previous carreer in journalism (and also happen to be a Brazilian as well), the media will always portrait the country in a way to make it seem "exotic" in order to gain more attention.
that's why you will _never_ see news articles about boring countryside towns
This article is obviously propaganda meant to counter the headlines about the Worker’s Party leading in the polls.
The working people of Brazil have suffered tremendously under Bolsanaro’s neoliberal government and Lula (Worker’s Party candidate who Bolsanaro imprisoned for 2 years on bogus charges) has a big lead. After the recent socialist victories in Chile and Bolivia (following the U.S.-assisted coup), western states will do everything they can to prevent the Worker’s Party from retaking power in Brazil. Expect more of this and other hi-jinx as the Fall election nears. It’s going to be a messy one.
This article is obviously propaganda meant to counter the headlines about the Worker’s Party leading in the polls.
The working people of Brazil have suffered tremendously under Bolsanaro’s neoliberal government and Lula (Worker’s Party candidate who Bolsanaro imprisoned for 2 years on bogus charges) has a big lead. After the recent socialist victories in Chile and Bolivia (following the U.S.-assisted coup), western states will do everything they can to prevent the Worker’s Party from retaking power in Brazil. Expect more of this and other hi-jinx as the Fall election nears. It’s going to be a messy one.
I’m pretty sure the liberal west would rather see Lula instead of Bolsonaro (who is Latin America’s Trump!). And besides it was not Bolsonaro who was behind the massive corruption scheme organized by the Workers Party (I mean either mensalao or have another sitting duck government, so it’s always lose-lose, but that’s beside the point).
between Lula and Kirchner, I’d rather have YOLO Bukele!
What makes you think the West would have Lula over Bolsonaro?
I come from a country ruled by a literal monarchy. That country is on very good terms with many western countries, such as the US. For the countries we aren't on good terms with, it's a question of geopolitics and trade.
A few years back there was a wave of revolutions in the area, that were touted as liberal (a lot of them really weren't). Oddly enough, there was little media attention, no agitation, and no support to that movement when it came to our country, even though we are even worse as a literal monarchy (in theory we have elections - they don't matter, think China but worse).
So it seems clear to me that the West will align with whoever is going to give better deals economically and geopolitically. In Brazil that's clearly Bolsonaro over Lula.
And of course there is plenty of corruption in Brazil. You can't root out corruption at the ballot box. It doesn't work like that.
The Economist (conservative British newspaper) was Lula's bitch while he was president, Lula was branded a leftist who brought capitalist prosperity, peace, and stability to Brazil. The Economist will forgive him his corruption in some Bagehot retrospective covering similar situations from the early 20th Century elsewhere and voilá, Lula will be anointed once more. He'll headline whatever is the new post-COVID BRIC.
Commenting on crypto in bio is 2022 HN's version of 2014 HN's commenting on site's CSS: "Good article, but black font on white bg makes this literally unreadable for me."
The image of someone sitting in a shack with VR gear on was thought provoking.
Will the adaptation of this technology accelerate quality of life improvements, or will it be an opiate of the masses who would rather exist virtually than in the real world?
Could this remove political desire for rapid change?
This country should have never normalized favelas. Just 50 years ago, places like Singapore and Seoul used to have slums that looked a lot like Brazilian favelas. But they invested in public housing and now look like sci-fi cities from the 25th century, while we were singing "quem mora no morro vive pertinho do ceu".
I understand your point and I see comparisons with South Korea a lot. Sibling commenter makes a good remark about education.
Another huge difference which can't be underestimated is the geopolitical importance of South Korea and the ensuing economic aid from the US.
Singapore also has uniquenesses (its location) that wouldn't translate well into other countries.
In no way does this diminish the merits of both those countries -- its great that they managed to develop so well, and they deserve applause for doing so. But I don't think we can easily compare either to Brazil.
Another big difference is that both of them were absolute dictatorships at the time, which means they would develop differently from democracies in general, let alone a very corrupt and flawed democracy like Brazil.
It's not as simple as the government fixing the problem by simply "investing in public housing". If it were that easy, Brazil would have already done it. Singapore and Seoul created educated populations and skilled jobs that were able to fit into growing industries like tech. The government can almost never just fix a problem by pouring money into it.
> Could this remove political desire for rapid change?
No, since in the end you do have to return to the "real" world. Unless we can upload ourselves to the metaverse, a majority of humans will continue to want change in meatspace.
There is the argument though that you could "entertain" people away supporting a fair cause.
This both by means of propaganda through the content they consume, and by simply giving people something they can consider "good enough". Would people in micro-apartments be happy living in 32m^2 if they didn't have computers / TVs?
Nice. I got a visit from someone in Brazil, who was teaching programming in the San Paulo. I looked at a picture of a bunch of his students, and most of them were women. He was teaching them to solder. I immediately took about a $20, and handed it to him. I think its time we send him a care package.
Wow, this is fascinating. Does anyone know of any mentorship programs that help youth in under-developed countries who are working to get into tech? I would love to participate in that kind of program, but the only ones I've seen are company based (ie: internal internship programs.)
This article is propaganda ahead of the upcoming election. The working people of Brazil have suffered tremendously under Bolsanaro’s neoliberal government and the Worker’s Party is leading in the polls. After the recent socialist victories in Chile and Bolivia (following the U.S.-assisted coup), western states will do everything they can to prevent the Worker’s Party from retaking power in Brazil. Expect more of this as the Fall election nears.
I grew up in Rio de Janeiro right next to a few favelas.
I also served time in the Brazilian army (mandatory drafting) for 12 months and was not only surrounded by guys from all types of favelas but was stationed on the border of the Maré Complex.[0]
Trust me. I know a thing or two about favelas.
I could write a book about it but I’ll stick to the topics on the OP’s article and some recurrent topics in the comments, some very unfounded.
The answer to how people below the poverty line can afford technology is simple: donations and debt.
It’s _very_ common in Brazil to accrue debt by buying things “parcelado” or in instalments on your credit card. Next to one one pays the full amount upfront for a meaningful purchase. Wanna buy a smartphone for $USD200? Pay 10x $USD23 over 10 months.
Why are these expensive gadgets not stolen? Of course they are. However not as commonly as one might guess, it’s virtually impossible to commit a crime unseen in a favela. There’s very little to no privacy at all. A mixture of citizen justice (wife beaters for example are routinely bashed by crowds of people) and drug dealers’ willingness to assert authority keeps most stupid thefts in check.
Favela residents will go to surprising lengths to acquire “escape”. In the 1990s it was the parabolic antenna and a tv. With the intro of cheap android devices and 3G it became social media and YouTube. As the price for VR drops it’ll be that.
Much before Facebook there was a social media app that exploded in Brazil, it was called Orkut, it was a reflection of the need for escape.
Also, with the advent of more and more cheap laptops, the promise of easy NFT/Crypto money and a magical job as a coder it’s becoming more and more common to see laptop ownership.
I see what Mr Chantilly is trying to do and it’s easy to dismiss it as a single fart in the galaxy but he helps keep some kids off the streets, gives them a bit of hope. Hopefully they learn more than League of Legends and come out of it speaking a little English and more comfortable using a pc.
What’s needed in Rio and Brazil is a multi-generational educational investment. It’ll never happen of course. Populist demagogues like Lula da Silva will keep being re-elected to “save the poor”. By rubber stamping high school certificates for people that can’t read why buying their votes with free food. Every 8 years or so they’ll rob so much they’ll get thrown out, a moron from the right will be elected, and the left will come back in again to reinstate the good times. Meanwhile a huge brain drain perpetuates.
Now on another note. If you’re a tourist in Rio STAY THE FUCK AWAY from any favelas. If you _must_ engage in poverty zoo/safari make sure you go with a trusted, long time in the market, tour guide and don’t forget at any time that you’re putting your life at risk. At any moment, there could be a police operation or a rival drug dealing gang using weapons of war in your immediate vicinity.
No I’m not exaggerating. I was shot at by AR15 and M16 rifles and returned fire with my shitty Belgium made FAL during an attempted “hit and run” on the barracks I was stationed at where a couple of maniacs on crack will jump the walls and try to get out with ammunition and rifles.
These days a lot of the hardcore drug gangs (or factions as they are often called in Rio) have been displaced by what most people would think of more classic mafia. Protection money, extra “taxes”, money loans, etc. These organisations are mostly comprised of corrupt ex and current policemen and low rank army personnel and therefore much more capable and educated than 90% of the dealers they displaced.
If you want to watch three great but extremely violent movies that explain this shift in power, watch these 3 in this order.
“City of God” - basically how violent drug dealing started in Rio back in the 70s. [1]
“Elite Squad” - the state of the war of drugs in Rio during the 90s. [2]
“Elite Squad 2 - Enemy within” - how it is was in the late 00s [3]
This article is obviously propaganda meant to counter the headlines about the Worker’s Party leading in the polls.
The working people of Brazil have suffered tremendously under Bolsanaro’s neoliberal government and Lula (Worker’s Party candidate who Bolsanaro imprisoned for 2 years on bogus charges) has a big lead. After the recent socialist victories in Chile and Bolivia (following the U.S.-assisted coup), western states will do everything they can to prevent the Worker’s Party from retaking power in Brazil. Expect more of this and other hi-jinx as the Fall election nears. It’s going to be a messy one.
Does MAV-PT still pay for spam or are you doing this for free? (The party this guy is spamming for is widely known for paying for spam comments and generating politic discussions online)
When you're at zero, anything happening is a "boom".
I should know, I'm from a country where IT is "booming"... Most of it is tedious boring work that was outsourced by western companies because no one there wants to do it, plus it's cheaper than even creating some automated processes.
Still, that's a pessimistic way to look at it. It's a good thing, and it can grow into something better.
Another perspective is that there are people who prefer to do those jobs (instead of say, working in Amazon warehouse) but can't because it's cheaper (and logistically possible) to outsource to another country.
But also on some level why in the world are they more deserving of the job then the potentially better qualified foreigner just because where they happened to be born.
The question is why is it better for the country not who is more deserving. This is an export of US dollars. Is it better to keep the position local so member of society can be taxed/buy from other local businesses or export so foreign worker can buy tools from US firms or US business can get job done for cheaper.
Well I think that is actually quite a different question. Luckily it's not at all clear that the sort of zero sum thinking that lead to mercantilism was ever true or will ever be true. Having the best people doing the jobs where they have a comparative advantage helps everyone. Ideally we would open our immigration system more, certainly to highly skilled labor, but until then.
They are not. At some level, we accept that there are a lot of inequities in our current sociopolitical systems.
What China (and the Asian Tigers) have shown us is that it is a feasible path to industrialize though. But its possible there are better ways to get to higher standards of living, we just haven't tried them yet.
If these people don't apply for these jobs, they might as well not exist.
Amazon warehouses are staffed with immigrants in Europe. And they would simply not be able to do anything IT related.
It might seem easy for us, but it's not. We're talking about people who can't reinstall Windows. They won't be doing manual unit testing anytime soon, or ever, nevermind anything more complicated.
German companies love keeping it local. Things like manual app testing are advertised as Minijobs, but very few are applying. And of course, they complain about a lack of workers. So outsourcing can make sense beyond saving every penny.
people from around the world hungry to pull themselves up from the bottom...
meanwhile in NYC and Oakland, high school students are on "strike" and walking out of class over bogus covid hysteria (aka a legit excuse to combine virtue signalling and goofing off)...apparently we must grovel to their demands as the world owes so much to, and depends so much on, the American teen
fast forward twenty years, who will have risen, who will have fallen
I vouched for your comment, since it talks about a very possible risk: replacement at the low end (and little by little towards the upper end) of WFH techies by other WFH techies from lower cost countries that won't ever think about this union stuff.
China has proved outsourcing is a valid path for growth as people learn the technology little-by-little to do what they need: these game streamers derided by other HN comments will certainly learn how to reinstall Windows and drivers, then how to deal with their fans, then how to make their website (if only to reduce costs/keep more profits) etc
And even if they only learn one of these (say, dealing with fans), personally I'd be happy more than happy to hire them as a community manager if the price is fair.
This article is obviously propaganda meant to counter the headlines about the Worker’s Party leading in the polls.
The working people of Brazil have suffered tremendously under Bolsanaro’s neoliberal government and Lula (Worker’s Party candidate who Bolsanaro imprisoned for 2 years on bogus charges) has a big lead. After the recent socialist victories in Chile and Bolivia (following the U.S.-assisted coup), western states will do everything they can to prevent the Worker’s Party from retaking power in Brazil. Expect more of this and other hi-jinx as the Fall election nears. It’s going to be a messy one.
You've copy/pasted this same comment 7 or 8 times on this page, on every top-level thread! (Ironically, warning about the propaganda of others) Don't do that on HN, thanks. Maybe write your own top-level comment instead of spamming on everyone else's. I guess this falls under "Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity."
> people from around the world hungry to pull themselves up from the bottom...
Foreign countries are poor like the Rolling Stones or Motley Crew are poor. They are actually very wealthy. They see nice peaceful lives as something for fools and cowards.
> meanwhile in NYC and Oakland, high school students are on "strike" and walking out of class over bogus covid hysteria (aka a legit excuse to combine virtue signalling and goofing off)...apparently we must grovel to their demands as the world owes so much to, and depends so much on, the American teen
Awful to see people turn their backs on their own. Big tech would be gone without bailouts and cheap consumer credit to buy their junk. Despite all their prestige, they don't do anything. People still die horribly. Their charity is not enough. The problems, such as neurological disease, are much more difficult than they thought. "Disruption" or "don't be evil" didn't work.
We gave them the luxury of a lot of resources while we fought some very bad people and took care of the sick. First chance they get they leave for Cypress and Brazil for people who really do hate them.
>fast forward twenty years, who will have risen, who will have fallen
I work from home and am only in tech because of family care-taking. Twenty years will be a sad time for me. Everyone will be gone. I'll be all alone.
Despite that, I kept up on my skills. I managed to have at least some real workplace experience. I have nothing but free time, and I am going to be incredibly angry at and have very little remorse towards the people we trusted with all our wealth and who chose marxists and drug gangs and terrorists over their own and burnt and looted my home.
