3 ms·

Bullshit. Brasil has >70% people working in the service sector. The percentage of people working in agriculture has actually shrunk since the Lula years. Mecha

by ratww 4y ago

Bullshit. Brasil has >70% people working in the service sector. The percentage of people working in agriculture has actually shrunk since the Lula years. Mechanization and automation will guarantee it keeps shrinking. The current economic measures are favouring only the primary sector to the detriment of others. I'm not even calling for ceasing imports of agricultural stuff, all I'm saying is that the current madness is already making the people poorer.

rglullis 4y ago
It is precisely because so many people working in the service sector that the country does not get rich. Doesn't build any wealth, doesn't get to export anything. And also, it is not the amount of people working that determines how to enrich the country. It is the overall output. Brazil has nothing but the agro sector at the moment. To build a stronger industry, they need to come up with the resources from somewhere. And agro is as good as any of the alternatives.
- ratww 4y ago
  Yes, and? My point is precisely that those people aren't going to start working in agriculture. The number of people working in agriculture is only shrinking, and there's several labour problems with agricultural work in Brazil that won't cause farm/livestock workers to see the money. I'm not suggesting people move to the services sector.
  - rglullis 4y ago
    > The number of people working in agriculture is only shrinking The number of people working doesn't matter. What matters is that the country gets through agriculture the resources needed to invest in the other sectors.
    - ratww 4y ago
      In theory that makes a lot of sense. Truly. In reality, believing that and going froward with this plan was an immense setback to the country and the population. Europe/US/etc letting Brazil keep doing what it's doing is mostly helping Europe/US/etc at the expense of Brazilians and the environment.
      - rglullis 4y ago
        I am not arguing in favor of the US or Europe, and I am also not arguing that Brazil should keep putting down trees just to sell more soybeans for the US and China. What I am saying is that the rich countries need to quit their double standard. The EU keeps putting absurd trade barriers to protect their own farmers. The US subsidizes their corn farms, effectively killing the Brazilian industry for biofuels. European NGOs are financed to disparage Brazil's investments in hydropower, while depending on Putin for gas and coal. So, yeah, agro business is far from ideal, but now is the only feasible alternative for Brazil to come up with any chance of development, and they will also work against that? I'd be more than willing to listen what they have to say if they were setting the example...
        ratww 4y ago
        Alright then we're in agreement. > What I am saying is that the rich countries need to quit their double standard. The EU keeps putting absurd trade barriers to protect their own farmers. The US subsidizes their corn farms, effectively killing the Brazilian industry for biofuels. European NGOs are financed to disparage Brazil's investments in hydropower, while depending on Putin for gas and coal. Oh, I agree with all that. That's an important post. > So, yeah, agro business is far from ideal, but now is the only feasible alternative for Brazil to come up with any chance of development, and they will also work against that? I'd be more than willing to listen what they have to say if they were setting the example... I guess my whole point is that foreigners saying "we did it before to grow, Brazil should do it too" is nonsensical, hypocritical and very self-serving, precisely because of your second paragraph. At the same time, I'm ok with foreigners telling Brazil to stop cutting trees because it opens the door to us at least replying with something like the second paragraph.

by ratww 4y ago

rglullis 4y ago

It is precisely because so many people working in the service sector that the country does not get rich. Doesn't build any wealth, doesn't get to export anything. And also, it is not the amount of people working that determines how to enrich the country. It is the overall output. Brazil has nothing but the agro sector at the moment. To build a stronger industry, they need to come up with the resources from somewhere. And agro is as good as any of the alternatives.

ratww 4y ago
Yes, and? My point is precisely that those people aren't going to start working in agriculture. The number of people working in agriculture is only shrinking, and there's several labour problems with agricultural work in Brazil that won't cause farm/livestock workers to see the money. I'm not suggesting people move to the services sector.
- rglullis 4y ago
  > The number of people working in agriculture is only shrinking The number of people working doesn't matter. What matters is that the country gets through agriculture the resources needed to invest in the other sectors.
  - ratww 4y ago
    In theory that makes a lot of sense. Truly. In reality, believing that and going froward with this plan was an immense setback to the country and the population. Europe/US/etc letting Brazil keep doing what it's doing is mostly helping Europe/US/etc at the expense of Brazilians and the environment.
    - rglullis 4y ago
      I am not arguing in favor of the US or Europe, and I am also not arguing that Brazil should keep putting down trees just to sell more soybeans for the US and China. What I am saying is that the rich countries need to quit their double standard. The EU keeps putting absurd trade barriers to protect their own farmers. The US subsidizes their corn farms, effectively killing the Brazilian industry for biofuels. European NGOs are financed to disparage Brazil's investments in hydropower, while depending on Putin for gas and coal. So, yeah, agro business is far from ideal, but now is the only feasible alternative for Brazil to come up with any chance of development, and they will also work against that? I'd be more than willing to listen what they have to say if they were setting the example...
      - ratww 4y ago
        Alright then we're in agreement. > What I am saying is that the rich countries need to quit their double standard. The EU keeps putting absurd trade barriers to protect their own farmers. The US subsidizes their corn farms, effectively killing the Brazilian industry for biofuels. European NGOs are financed to disparage Brazil's investments in hydropower, while depending on Putin for gas and coal. Oh, I agree with all that. That's an important post. > So, yeah, agro business is far from ideal, but now is the only feasible alternative for Brazil to come up with any chance of development, and they will also work against that? I'd be more than willing to listen what they have to say if they were setting the example... I guess my whole point is that foreigners saying "we did it before to grow, Brazil should do it too" is nonsensical, hypocritical and very self-serving, precisely because of your second paragraph. At the same time, I'm ok with foreigners telling Brazil to stop cutting trees because it opens the door to us at least replying with something like the second paragraph.