Superpower by 2050

yes, after the holocaust of all brazilians, including myself

>2016
Ahhh ues the obsessed /leftypol/ hue subhuman

So? If another country can instigate a coup in your country, it means you don't deserve to be a superpower, because you're just a banana republic, nothing more.

The US wouldn't be able to do such a thing in China, that's why China is a superpower.

By 2050 Brazil will be a Chinese colony.

SOPA

Are they still fucking doing that? I hate Brazil now.

>So? If another country can instigate a coup in your country, it means you don't deserve to be a superpower, because you're just a banana republic, nothing more.
USA can do this because the rich brazilians and the upper-middle-class support this kind of shit

Why??

Because they live better than 90% of europeans while the blacks and browns live like in India

By 2050 the world* will be a Chinese colony.

*ftfy

>prove me wrong
Pardos.

Fuck this timeline.

t.ahmed

This makes literally no sense. Why would a Muslim be shilling for Chinese hegemony?

Because EVERYBODY who is not rich or white hate the USA

Attached: 1475197365712.png (285x276, 65K)

>what is topography??

Attached: 1531077658530.png (645x729, 77K)

Whoa I had no fucking idea Brazil was this mountainous.

That's not what I was talking about. If your country can't resist meddling in its internal affairs, it can't be a superpower.

>Because they live better than 90% of europeans while the blacks and browns live like in India

That's the same like in China or Russia yet the US can't instigate a coup there.

Your "problem" is just lack of the authoritarian government and strong army. If you had it, the US couldn't do shit.

But for Brazilians it's better to be ruled indirectly from the USA. Being an independent superpower usually means being a shithole for the people.

I'm a poor Slav and I love the US

Well, we saved you from getting spit roasted in ww2.

At least Brazil is the best nigger country in the world. Brazil could be the Kangz of Africa.

It won't take that long

Well, actually you did nothing. Russians did. You helped us in the 1980s to get rid of commies.

Can we become a superpower?

Yes. If you actually invest in making your economy competitive.

Isn't it? Actually I think Argentinian economy is one of the most economies worth investing in, they go bankrupt every 10 years, then recover and achieve decent rates and then go bankrupt again. That's a stable, predictable cycle.

So all you have to do is to buy their stocks when they're bankrupt and sell them when they're at peak.

>Isn't it?
I don't think so.
One factor that led Argentina to its state was the fact that their economy wasn't diversified enough to compete with other rising economies of that time. In other words, Argentina wasn't able to compete.

Right now laws for creating business and moving capital aren't really attractive given that these laws make your actions to last months or years. This doesn't make an economy competitive, it only kills Argentina's opportunity to be a powerful economy in every sense of the word. Part of Peru's late success comes from making easier to make business (you can also add a number of laws that regulates spending from the government)

doingbusiness.org/rankings?region=latin-america-and-caribbean

It's quite hard to make business in Argentina compared to its neighbors as you can see here.

Sorry if I fucked up while writing this, is about 11 pm here in Peru and I'm tired.

*Huge leadership crisis across all branches of government.
*Egregious bureaucracy,
*Government employees are virtually un-fireable, retire early, get sweet benefits for life. This includes the public universities' faculties.
*Most absurd tax code in the world.
*No investment in infrastructure since the dictatorship.
*Culture is too polarized around SP-RJ axis, these cities swell beyond reasonable limits.
*No national plan, no 'mission statement', Brazilians don't believe in good things for the future.

>Peru's late success

Well, despite your "success" you're still way poorer than "bankrupt" Argentina.

>It's quite hard to make business in Argentina compared to its neighbors as you can see here.

Just like every developed country has tighter rules for business and higher taxes than most of third world countries. That's because a developed state needs more money for the services it provides to the people. Your point?

Yes. But your would need to multiply your current population at least by 5. You can do this by importing hundreds of millions inmigrants from non Southern Cone countries.

The US is the one who instigated the 1964 military coup in the first place. Brazil then had right-wing dictatorships for decades, *through which the US controlled the country*. So your theory doesn't make any sense. It is incredibly difficult for any western hemisphere country to not be controlled by the US when the CIA can throw money to the like 50 families that have always run these countries and have them do whatever they want.

>Wide territory
>A large population
>Rich resources
Still not superpower

Attached: 1524417999252.png (941x887, 199K)

>Brazil then had right-wing dictatorships for decades, *through which the US controlled the country*.

Because they didn't have a strong army, so they were afraid the US could invade them. Since the US can't really invade China or Russia, they can be indepedent superpowers.

>by the US when the CIA can throw money to the like 50 families that have always run these countries and have them do whatever they want.

Why you can't do the same in China or Russia then? They're also oligarchies (or "bureaucratic oligarchies"), especially Russia.

Japan is much more mountainos

Only if Ciro Gomes win

honestly, still better than being a subject of your Chaebol overlords.

Go to that one site where you can drag the country outlines and see how many times you can fit japan in the mountainous part of Brazil. Account for the fact that we only have cost to one site of the country, the central regions are landlocked as fuck.

The US was never going to invade Brazil, I have no idea where you got that idea. 1964 was a coup because the left government of Brazil was starting to threaten US business interests.

First, we basically did control Russia through the entire Yeltsin period. We turned the country to absolute shit by sacking every public institution, life expectancy plummeted years and suicide and alcoholism went way up. The Putin government is in large part a reaction to the catastrophic failure of the economic policies imposed by the US in the 90s (thank Jeffrey Sachs). Russians are totally disenchanted with the American approach after that experience.

China (now) is extremely large and almost as wealthy as the US and has very cohesive and efficient political structures. They are just way better organized and coherent right now, and frankly would probably be more successful meddling with us than the other way around.

>Well, despite your "success" you're still way poorer than "bankrupt" Argentina.
For that reason I say "late", I don't even know if we are going to go through their same path, we still have a shitty economy that depends mostly on mining. And watching our late events regarding politics, I could tell you that maybe we will be a lot worse in the next couple of years, I'm bracing myself for this.

>That's because a developed state needs more money for the services it provides to the people. Your point?
Argentina is not a developed country yet. And I'm not complaining about taxes and all of that stuff, I'm complaining about the bureaucracy, it is so much easier to make business in Chile than in Argentina. Chile also provides good services to its citizens and they don't go through the same difficulties as Argentina to establish a business and staying legal while doing so.

For a reason I chose Peru as my example, we could make a decent improvement from the
absolute shithole that we were in just a few decades before in such a short period of time when we started to get rid of laws that only made the creation of business harder. Don't get me wrong, we are still a shit hole, but you can at least know that you can have a decent life in here.

Also, just to add up, bureaucracy can make a country more vulnerable to corruption, making people more eager to pay authorities outside the law in order to make business easier. I know that Peru and Mexico are more corrupt than Argentina, but keep in mind that, at least in Peru's case, our corruption involves a lot of stuff related with political drama that we had a few decades ago and we still have a problem with bureaucracy.

My point is that Argentina can gain more stability and grow more if they just simply get rid of certain laws regarding business creation. I'm not saying that they should drop their welfare programs or reduce their taxes. Maybe I'm wrong I am not really into politics anymore.

Actual informed opinion

>The US was never going to invade Brazil,

Because there was no need to do it, as Brazilian government was either obedient or it was easy to instigate a coup. But if it didn't work, you'd have invaded them for sure.

>First, we basically did control Russia through the entire Yeltsin period.

Exactly, you did it when they didn't have an authoritarian government with a strong army, just like I said before.

> They are just way better organized and coherent right now

You mean - they have a stronger (more authoritarian) government and stronger army...

>'m complaining about the bureaucracy, it is so much easier to make business in Chile than in Argentina.

Because Argentina has been a traditionally more developed country than Chile. I'm sure it's easier to make business in Peru than in France. If you want to sell food in the streets of Lima, you don't need anything (since you see a lot of old people preparing street food in poor conditions), while in France you'd have to meet all the sanitary regulations etc. That's the price that comes along with development.

It's always easier to make business in third world countries, for both poor people (because no one cares about stuff they sell in the streets) and big companies (it's enough to bribe some politicians to do whatever you want).

>but you can at least know that you can have a decent life in here.

You can have a decent life in literally every country in the world, even in fucking Central Africa, it depends on who you are and how much money you have.

And for the last 30 years, due to globalization, we've seen a surge of third world countries with high GDP growth, actually every country grows, only very few, like Venezuela get poorer, due to very specific reasons (and Venezuela was just quite a developed country before). Peru is not special.

>A third of Brazil is jungle, which is painfully expensive and most times illegal to carve out land fit for modern human habitation
>The climate and soil around the Amazon work against the development of agriculture
>The amazon, while navigable in parts, have banks that are too muddy and such makes the surrounding land difficult to build on, limited the amount of profitable land available
>The Grand Escarpment, creates a lack of a coastal plain to connect its major cities, this combined with a lack of decent modern roads is not a recipe for profitable trading or unifying a large space politically.
>Brazil does not have access to the Rio de la Plata region. The River plate itself empties out into the Atlantic in Argentina, meaning that for centuries traders have moved their goods down the plate to Buenos Aires rather than up and down the grand Escarpment to get to Brazils underdeveloped ports.
>Texas-based geopolitical intelligence company Stratfor.com estimates that Brazils seven largest trading ports combined can handle fewer goods per year than the single American port of New Orleans
>An estimate 25 percent of Brazillians are thought to live in the infamous favela slums. When one in four of a states population is in abject poverty it is difficult for that state to become rich. This does not mean Brazil is not a rising power, just that its rise will be limited

Essentially, is right. The geography of Brazil is a serious disadvantage for trade, agriculture, development, and political unity.

I am saying there are more variables to US control of a country than just whether a county is a dictatorship. Through the whole cold war and today we propped up and controlled innumerable military dictatorships. The US military has deep relationships with most other armies on the planet, so having a military dictatorship if anything makes you more likely to be controlled by the US. We had less control of Brazil during Lula's tenure than we did after the 64 coup, to state the obvious. And way less control over Chile under Allende than after the 73 coup that deposed him. Historically military dictatorship is a tool that the US can use when foreign governments become too far to the left for US business. As I tried to explain, Russia and China are unique places with strong senses of identity that have historical reasons and the economic strength to brush us off right now.

Ok user, you might have a point. But I will still stand that Argentina needs to do something regarding their business laws.

>Peru is not special.
I have never said that it was.
Most of the Peruvian middle class that you see today was dirty poor just a few decades ago, and the reason that Peru has a large diaspora was that all the people tried to leave the country because it was impossible for you and your children to stop being poor in your lifetime at that time (My parents were part of that diaspora). And add to this that people couldn't walk in the streets without fear of getting killed by terrorists or the military. We were Venezuela-tier regarding inflation might I add.

You just couldn't have a decent life in here before 2000. Just like in a big number of other countries that had also adopted laws in order to be able to compete in a globalized market.

I'm just saying that doing something regarding our restrictive policies helped us to get to get better.

still stand by my point that*

>>Brazil does not have access to the Rio de la Plata region.
Wrong

Fuck amazon, nobody lives there

>An estimate 25 percent of Brazillians are thought to live in the infamous favela slums
Just 6% of brazilians live in favelas

From where you take these shitty informations??

According to the 2010 Census, about 6% of Brazil's population live in favelas or shanty-towns - around 11.25 million people across the country

bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-27635554

You guys have no idea how much of a colossal mess the brazilian government is, and yet somehow this country manages to be the world's 8th economy.

Brazil might stand a chance of becoming an actual superpower if it gets its shit together, that's the hardest part since people here don't know how to vote and a chinese style efficient dictatorship won't ever happen because brazilians like their liberty to be degenerates and talk shit freely.

Attached: the-melancholy-of-haruhi-suzumiya.jpg (1024x576, 58K)

>I'm just saying that doing something regarding our restrictive policies helped us to get to get better.

First of all, I would argue if an increasing income gap and inequality is good per se.

Secondly, this:

>Just like in a big number of other countries that had also adopted laws in order to be able to compete in a globalized market.

Applies to 95% countries in the world and Argentina is part of this globalized market as well, just they're already on a different level, where you need to impose some restrictions to maintain high level of development in your country. Believe me, when Peru reaches a certain level, it will impose such laws as well, otherwise you will be stuck in a middle trap income for ever and you will never become a developed country or you'll see a revolution in your country when your people notice their living standards don't grow as fast as GDP per capita does (that's because lax business laws let money flow out of the country), do you think Peron or any other populist appeared out of nowhere? No, he appeared because people felt they didn't get a right share of wealth the country has, they were fed with fairy tales about how their country was rich but they didn't feel it.

>we propped up and controlled innumerable military dictatorships.

Those that didn't have a strong enough army to defy the pressure.

>As I tried to explain, Russia and China are unique places with strong senses of identity that have historical reasons and the economic strength to brush us off right now.

And that's why they are superpowers and Chile or Brazil won't be. Brazil could be one if it had a strong army that could put up a plucky resistance to the American forces invading the country.

Just 7% of brazilian land is occupied byagriculture and even so is the second largest producer of agricultural products behind the US

Compare with Europe Union where 70% of land is occupied

Serious, stop with bullshit

>when Peru reaches a certain level, it will impose such laws as well.
I'm already aware of that and agree with it. But just as I think that Peru is not ready for such laws right now, I think that Argentina is not ready for adopting laws that make the creation of business harder.

As I said before, I'm not saying that they need to drop their welfare programs, reduce their taxes or to impose laws regarding competition between enterprises (these are very fundamental in fact and I wish that we had these in here). I'm just saying that they should just make something regarding their illegal bureaucratic barriers and irrational bureaucratic barriers.

>I think that Argentina is not ready for adopting laws that make the creation of business harder.

If they didn't have them, they would be much worse than they are. Even Chile is worse than Argentina, an average Chilean is poorer than an average Argentinian, just Chile has a big upper middle class and one of the highest Gini rates in the world so "on average" it looks like Chile is equally rich, but if we exclude the top 1% of the richest in both countries, Argentina will be a better and richer place than Chile.

>I'm just saying that they should just make something regarding their illegal bureaucratic barriers and irrational bureaucratic barriers.

Well, you may think they are irrational but such laws are passed to attain a certain goal which is to put the business under control so they couldn't avoid taxes.

>First of all, I would argue if an increasing income gap and inequality is good per se.
Shit sorry, I forgot about this.

In fact, the laws that we have implemented regarding the creation of business and the legality of these helped the poor sectors of the country to have a chance in the national market. I can say for sure that before the 90's the gap between the lower class and the high class was wider than it is now.

But I agree that we need to do something about our inequality in the near future.

not to impose laws*
Sorry again

Approximately 25 percent of Brazillians are living under the poverty line, according to the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics 2016 analysis on the living conditions of the Brazillian population.
riotimesonline.com/brazil-news/rio-politics/more-than-25-million-brazilians-living-below-poverty-line/

>Just 7% of brazilian land is occupied byagriculture and even so is the second largest producer of agricultural products behind the US
Because of the Cerrado Savannah region. Twenty five years ago, the region was considered unfit for agriculture but technology turned it around into a success story. Now its become the worlds producer of soybeans and having growth in grain and coffee production. This is the first place outside of the traditional Brazillian agriculture land to the south to see any kind of large agricultural growth for 300 years. It's unlikely the poor, loose, muddy soil around the amazon will see something like this.

Ok user, you are right on this. Thanks.

>you may think they are irrational
No, I don't think that these are irrational, several government institutions think this based on how viable these laws are in our environment.

These organizations and/or institutions are:
Indecopi, Comisiones de Eliminación de Barreras Burocráticas (CEB), and Sala Especializada en Eliminación de Barreras Burocráticas (SEL)
Secretaría Técnica Regional de Eliminación de Barreras Burocráticas

Someone on /lit/ told me pic related is going to make Brazil great, Is it true?

Attached: Roberto Mangabeira Unger.jpg (856x1198, 136K)

Current state of Brazil

current state of Czechia

Attached: Czech-Hunter-Guy-Pays-Twink-For-Bareback-Sex-Amateur-Gay-Porn-17.jpg (800x533, 37K)

I love your foot fetish videos, Czech

>*Most absurd tax code in the world.

Explain.

The difference is we are not claiming any superpower aspirations, my simian friend

Nobody can, that's the problem

Define superpower, and are you saying this based on what?

Believe me mate, looking at koreas progress you wish you had chaebols.

>study all days and nights long
>work for 14 hours a day + weekends
>live in a small apartment you had to get a bank loan for $1 million to buy
>get drunk when you have a little free time with your boss not to get the sack
>not be able to start a family because everything is damn expensive, women care only about money and you don't have much time anyway
>commit a suicide when you're 40

wonderful progress indeed

>wonderful progress indeed
Better than being flayed alive polan after living in poverty.

Their life expectancy is at 80+ so obviously suicide isn't wide spread enough to cause an issue.

Also don't worry you'll be joining Korea soon as polish leadership wants to create "national champions" like the chaebols.

bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-22/polish-leader-chases-economic-miracle-with-vision-of-champions

Technically a superpower is a nation or state that has mastered the seven dimensions of state power: geography, population, economy, resources, military, diplomacy and national identity.

But in simple terms, most definitions at the core point to three things.
>The country must be a true, unrestricted 2 ocean power with access to global sea lanes. One of Russias biggest weakness during the Soviet Union was never getting access to warm waters of the Indian Ocean through the invasion of Afghanistan. Being a true, unrestricted 2 ocean power has been on the Russians to-do list since Peter the Great,

>The country must have undertaken the most expensive and ambitious thing a modern country can do, have an extensive carrier based blue water navy. We can see China attempting this right now, with their pursuit of home grown carriers and the intent to create a blue water navy capable of patrolling the sea lanes.
And
>Must have global reach, through either military installments, alliances or colonies, or a mix of all 3. China is also attempting this, with large investments some military of nature, being built overseas with "Totally not Chinese military" there to definitely not protect it.

>Also don't worry you'll be joining Korea soon as polish leadership wants to create "national champions" like the chaebols.

They can talk whatever they want, Poles will never agree to work in such conditions like Koreans did.

>Better than being flayed alive polan after living in poverty.

Nope, I'd rather live in poverty than live like Koreans.

>Their life expectancy is at 80+ so obviously suicide isn't wide spread enough to cause an issue.

>expectancy

That's why expectations =/= reality.

>That's why expectations =/= reality

Holy shit are you retarded? Life expectancy is very accurate measure of how long you'll live in a particular country.

You're more likely to live to 80+ as a Korean than a pole. It's a fact deal with it :^)

>They can talk whatever they want, Poles will never agree to work in such conditions like Koreans did.

Your immigrants in other European countries say otherwise.

>Nope, I'd rather live in poverty than live like Koreans.

That's because you don't know what poverty is like, because poor people work more and earn less than Koreans. It just isn't measured as they aren't in the formal sectors.

Brazil is the land of the future

>And it will always be

wtf

you'll run out of food suply by then and be forever leeching off america

>Your immigrants in other European countries say otherwise.

They never work like Koreans.

>Holy shit are you retarded? Life expectancy is very accurate measure of how long you'll live in a particular country.

Maybe those who avoid killing themselves live longer.

>That's because you don't know what poverty is like, because poor people work more and earn less than Koreans. It just isn't measured as they aren't in the formal sectors.

I am poor. But at least I work only 8 hours a day.