Yes, indeed, I recall people telling me the same story about the "infantile-invasion" that actually added to Bosch's caricaturization as a loose cannon and further cost him whatever little prestige he had at the time. With the old Neo-Trujillato still firmly in control of the military, Bosch really did himself a disservice.

But getting back to your point about DR's positive direction-NOT WITHSTANDING THE ENORMOUS TASK STILL AT HAND-during these last 7 or so years, we all should step back and see DR for what it's been and what it's become: yes, many flaws are evident and still need correction; but in the main, a positive trending is noticeable too Many wish to see the cup half-empty and I'm of the opinion that the cup is half-full.

I agree that tax collection, customs, and lately the electrical sector have improved. As the article above made clear, getting public sector professionalism and good practices to become the norm in a country is seldom an easy task. The example of Lula's successor is a welcomed development in Latin America. As she is in a "boron y cuantas nuevas" mode light or "The faxina" .

Perhaps The PLD will dispense with some of its most noxious brew in the next go-around I sure hope so.

Politics in Brazil

Cleaning the Brasília pork factory

In a never-ending telenovela of sleaze, Dilma Rousseff is tackling the excesses of patronage politics but not yet the underlying system

Nov 26th 2011 | SÃO PAULO | from the print edition

BY NOW Brazil’s president, Dilma Rousseff, must be finding the script wearily familiar. First come the corruption allegations, then the indignant denials, more evidence, equivocation and retractions—and finally another of her ministers has to walk. Since June Ms Rousseff has lost her chief of staff and the ministers of transport, agriculture, tourism and sport, variously accused of influence-peddling, bribe-taking, signing fraudulent deals with shell companies and diverting public funds into party coffers or their own pockets. Now Carlos Lupi, the labour minister, has become the latest to look as if he is heading for the exit.

He is accused of presiding over a department that charged kickbacks for government contracts, of personally accepting free flights from one of those contractors and of siphoning off public money to semi-phantom non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Mr Lupi’s response was pugnacious. He did not know the man in question and had never flown with him, he said. The only way to get him out of his ministry, Mr Lupi added, would be to shoot him (“and it would have to be a big bullet, because I’m a big guy”). Then came photographs of him with both businessman and plane. His defenestration seems to be a matter of time. Barring new revelations, he may go in a wider cabinet shuffle expected early in the new year.
In this section

The faxina (“housecleaning”), as Ms Rousseff’s removal of allegedly light-fingered ministers has come to be known, is popular. The latest opinion polls put her and her government’s approval ratings at record highs. But it merely scratches the surface of a problem with roots in the way that politics has developed in Brazil. All presidents since democracy was restored in 1985 have had to form variegated coalitions to obtain legislative majorities. But, complained Fernando Henrique Cardoso, a former president, earlier this month, a “system” has now developed under which parties demand ministries in return for their votes, and then use the public funds they thus gain control of to expand their membership.

The 513 seats in the lower house of Congress are now divided between 23 parties. Ms Rousseff’s governing coalition comprises ten of them, commanding 360 seats (an 11th, with 40 legislators, left after the transport minister was sacked). Several of its smaller members have no discernible aim other than to grow fat on public money. The biggest, the Party of the Brazilian Democratic Movement, an alliance of regional power brokers, switched to join her predecessor, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, after he won in 2002 and will stay only as long as it suits. “We have a strong president who is unable to do anything without support in Congress,” says Sylvio Costa of Congresso em Foco, an anti-corruption watchdog. “And that support must be bought.”

When the solution found by Lula’s party managers in his first term—paying parliamentarians for their votes—came to light, the resulting outrage nearly brought him down. With cash ruled out, ministries and other grace-and-favour appointments were left as the main political currency. That led to ministerial inflation: Lula’s cabinet grew from 26 in 2003 to 37 when he stepped down last year. Some parties seem to have run “their” ministries for profit. The Communist Party, for example, has held the sports ministry since Lula took office. Under Orlando Silva, forced out shortly before Mr Lupi’s travails began, it is alleged to have demanded kickbacks on some contracts and funnelled money to affiliates through fake NGOs.

Some 25,000 jobs, including board and managerial posts at state-controlled firms and pension funds and in ministries’ regional offices, are also in the president’s gift. A senior official points out that 20,000 of these go to career civil servants, not party hacks. But the two are not mutually exclusive, points out David Fleischer, a political scientist at the University of Brasília. The test comes when a new party takes the presidency, as when Lula took office, he says. Then there was a wholesale clear-out. By the end of Lula’s second term a big share of senior managers in the federal administration and at state pension funds were trade unionists or members of his Workers’ Party (PT).

Ms Rousseff has shown little sign that she is interested in making radical changes to this political-patronage system. She has already added a 38th cabinet member (the boss of a new civil-aviation agency) and plans a 39th (a minister for small businesses). To streamline the government bureaucracy, officials place their faith in a new public-management council, chaired by Jorge Gerdau, a businessman. There is talk that some ministries may be consolidated. To go much further, the president would have to cut the number of ministries held by her own party (currently 18), and that looks unlikely.

More plausible is that Ms Rousseff will simply continue to sack the most egregious sinners as they are brought to her notice. She has been more parsimonious than Lula in disbursing funds for budget amendments pushed by individual legislators. Already her crackdown on ministerial miscreants has cut off the main (illegal) source of cash for small political parties, points out Alberto Almeida of Instituto Análise, a consultancy in São Paulo. Over time that might prompt a much-needed consolidation of the political system.

Officials insist that the government needs a large political base to be able to approve important legislation, such as a new oil-royalty law. They talk, too, of tax and pension reform. But much of Ms Rousseff’s political agenda—improving education and health, eliminating extreme poverty, and investing in infrastructure—does not require congressional approval. She could afford to be more radical in her political clean-up.

Generoso, bear in mind that, as a result of the Great Depression, by 1939 there was no major industrial nation that was outwardly capitalist, at least in nomenclature. Germany has National Socialism, Italy had Fascism, along with Spain, the US had the Keynesisn Democratic Statism, and the USSR had Communism. these developments took place because of the catastrophic failure of capitalism afte 1929. times are radically different, which is why you are right in predictiing a tectonic shift in thinking. during the Depression, there was hope. laid off workers realized that the country was in a phase of idle capacity, wherein factories were closed, because of demand for products, but would reopen when things improved. today, there is hopelessness, because there is no such reality. there are no factories to go to, because 2 million jobs have been lost to China , in the last decade. America does not have a manufacturing base, any more. the levels of debt, and the holes that people are in, financially, appear insurmountable. besides, during the roaring 20s, people had stable jobs, which paid well, and had security. today, we have a new class called the precariat. that consists of the unemployed, and the unemployable. they are living on the ragged edge, and dare not complain about the pittances they are offered : jobs with no benefits, few hours, dead end possibilities. these are the people that Alan Greenspan characterizes as being ¨good for the economy¨, since they can be had for cheap. the crap has hit the fan, and the only conclusion is that neoliberalism and the so called ¨free market¨are NOT the answer. capitalism cannot survive the current format why, you ask? because you cannot sell to people with no money, that´s why. if capitalism has no buyers, and experiences low aggregate demand, it will suffer from a debilitating infirmity known as excess capacity, which can only be remedied by welfare programs, subsidies, and high interest rates, all of which do not further is cause. Third World nations cannot be expected to enter into so called ¨free trade agreements¨with superpowers, who have the decks stacked in their favor. under WTO rules, any foreign concern is free to bid on any major project in another country. so, some monster construction company, with billions of dollars to slosh around, can bid on a highway in the DR. not so good, at least from the point of some guy who was born here, and has struggled to build up his business, from scratch. down with neoliberalism. it is a certified failure. the jury is in.

Welcome to the thread Dread, I have not been reading you lately in DT and hope you are well.
I believe that the predicted age of Aquarius that we all have been waiting for, is finally upon us, but before it commences, the world as we know it will turn topsy turvy, and the old systems will give birth to a hybrid state, more in sync with today's technologies.
This is for the new generations to fine tune, and adjust to different cultures, and modus operandis.
But I am certain and I see it clear as day, that drastic changes are coming in the next decade, that will
reduce the disparity between the very rich and the "precariat" as you say.

General, this is how i see it. the entire chessboard has changed, completely. in recent history, countries have striven for independence, and take great pride in it. the American liberation from the British, the Haitians from the French, the Dominicans from Haiti, then Spain, and, during the 60s, the Caribbean states. independence has always been a matter of pride. much flag wavibg, and celebrations, especially on the day in question. it gave rise to honest , innocuous nationalism among some, xenophobia among many. it kept people together, and gave them , in certain instances, something to strive for, collectively. well, that is over. with the new global world, there is no such thing as independence. most countries are owned by global banking. the IMF, the external arm of the US treasury, dictates your monetary policy, in the event that you have liquidity issues, and have to borrow from them. secondly, external forces dictate what happens in your country. so, if some guys in the Middle East start a war, you pay through the teeth at the gas pump, even though they are half way around the world. thirdly, a small number of national entities, such as Gazprom, Petronas, Saudi Aramco, and 4 others, all national companies, control the lion´s share of petroleum, and natural gas. he who controls energy, controls civilization. these things are beginning to sink in, and despondency among people is the order of the day. the guys Occupying Everything do not all know what they want. they all know what they DO NOT WANT.

That is why people like you (and maybe me ), are more of a threat to the 1% than the uneducated masses. You understand why educated masses, and not just educated the Chinese way, that they are really educated humanoid clones, but educated with free speech and mobility, and cultural, economic and social freedom, are the REAL enemy to the oligarchs and plutocrats that are pulling the strings, not only in DR, but worldwide.
I use to laugh when I heard the conspiracy economic theories that circulated, mostly from extreme left proponents, but nowadays I realize that maybe we where the ones, that had our eyes covered with the cloth of disbelief.

Exactly not true ; Western educated peoples have sold out to the 1% - they become newspaper, internet and television hacks and numerous other so called professional serving this elite. Also run the bogus universities selling degrees at a vast price the poor cannot afford. Free speech if you are a member of a corporation is near non-existent, economic freedom is curtailed by huge loans, media and peer pressure to be avid consumers etc.

Possibly one hope for the future is with leaderships such as China, Brazil making real efforts to reduce or end poverty and through nationalized industries creating really energy efficient infrastructure, housing, farming etc.

Unlike in the 70 s even many in the 1% of the USA realize that US world domination is not tenable long term nor is the US form of capitalism.

Present thinking in these countries owes much to Keynes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Keynesian_resurgence#The_Keynesian_revival_of_2008.E2.80.932009


Unlike in the 70 s even many in the 1% of the USA realize that US world domination is not tenable long term nor is the US form of capitalism.


S.



S.

Here's a sobering take on matters and it's not a pretty sight. Yikes



The Last Refuge of Wall Street: Marketing To Increasingly Insolvent Consumers (December 12, 2011)


Wall Street is promising riches to those who believe social media is something more than just another Darwinian churn of starving piranhas.

Have you noticed that all the "hot" initial public offerings (IPOs) being hyped by Wall Street are all marketing companies? The big IPO that has everyone on the Street salivating is of course Facebook in 2012--the ultimate "social media" marketing machine.

What's striking about these heavily hyped Social Media companies is that they make nothing, and their service is either free (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) or a "free" marketing mechanism (Groupon). When was the last time a company went public in the U.S. that actually manufactured a good? When was the last time a "hot" company went public selling a service that had nothing to do with marketing and that actually performed a valuable function?

Wall Street has nothing left to sell except marketing schemes aimed at increasingly insolvent consumers. With a hollowed-out manufacturing base and leveraged financialization finally running out of steam as the engine of "growth" (see debt saturation chart below), then chumming the waters thrashing with marketing piranhas is Wall Street's last refuge of staggering profits.

Does anyone really believe Groupon coupons build lasting profits? Offering 50% discounts is basically the "Black Friday" scam run year-round: sales leap up because the product/service is being sold at a loss.

Once the customers grab the deal, they're gone until the next loss-leader sale. Meanwhile the enterprise experienced a blip up in revenues that quickly declines while racking up major losses to honor the coupon.

In other words, marketing to increasingly insolvent consumers is a Darwinian zero-sum game. Sales can't actually increase as consumer credit and incomes both decline; sales are simply brought forward in time or ripped from the desperate grasp of a competitor.

The only "hot industry" left in America that Wall Street can hype is the one promising to get to the consumer before the other marketing piranhas can strip the last shreds of cash and credit from their bones. Wall Street has no interest in hosting 800 Million Channels of Me for free; there is essentially no income in this "revenue model."

The "real money" in hosting 800 Million Channels of Me for free is in the selling of stuff to those who spend hours on the site, expanding their Channel of Me and socializing online.

But that model assumes the people spending hours on social media sites actually have disposable income to spend. The Wall Street crowd loves consumption math extrapolations--if 800 million Chinese people each buy one tube of Crest toothpaste, if 800 million Indian people each buy a Coke, if 800 million people on Facebook or Twitter each spend $20 on Farmville or another online game....

We're all get filthy rich!

Actually, it's the folks selling marketing services who will get rich, and Wall Street knows this. Those selling the "sizzle" of marketing take no risks and carry no costs of actually making goods or delivering services; their money is made the moment you fall for their pitch that "social media is the place to get to those consumers before anyone in old media can even smell their credit cards."

But Wall Street is working a meta-scam, as usual: you don't have to believe in the trillion-dollar potential of social media marketing, all you need to believe is that other suckers will believe it enough to buy the shares of the IPO off you for a bloated price.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, American consumers are increasingly insolvent: their incomes are declining even as their non-Federal taxes rise and their debts are pinned at the "crushing" level.

Let's glance at a few charts for a whiff of non-Wall-Street-tainted reality.

After tax income is way off the pre-recession peak-- and note that "government transfers" are a big part of non-earned income. Also note how the refinancing "your house is an ATM machine" boom that issued $2.5 trillion in crisp new bills to consumers per year at the peak has broken down for good; the "free money" from re-fi's has declined to a trickle.

Note that Median Income of working-age households has fallen dramatically.

Employment has tanked.

If we look at the ratio of employed to the civilian population, the reality is even more sobering.

Employment per capita has also fallen off a cliff.

As a percentage of GDP, employee compensation (i.e. earned income) has collapsed to levels not seen in 50 years.

Here is a chart of the costs of financialization: staggering debt loads in every sector of the economy, public and private.

Keeping all those wars "hot" and all those transfers flowing while tax revenues tanked means Federal debt has skyrocketed.

Households funded the past 30 years of consumption with debt.

All that debt no longer adds to GDP "growth," it actually causes GDP to contract. "Growth" based on exponential debt has run its course; marginal returns have turned negative. It's called debt saturation.

The real economy is still well below pre-recession levels of production.

The financial media ignores rising taxes-- for example, property taxes, which continue to rise nationally even as the market value of real estate continues declining.

So let's add this up: less income, crushing debt loads, higher taxes (not to mention junk fees), no more "free money" from re-financing, and a Federal government that might not be able to borrow and blow 11% of GDP each and every year to prop up consumption.

The Darwinian struggle to strip the flesh from insolvent consumers before one's competitors do so is not a thriving economy nor a growing economy; it is a hollowed out economy at a dead-end of financialization and substitution of Federal debt for actual production.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-last-refuge-of-wall-street-marketing-to-increasingly-insolvent-consumers-2011-12