Rio Olympics

[giblets]

Dinner sounds like a Republican

[pchang]

The water in the diving pool was a nice dark green today. Is it racist to mention that?

[giblets]

The water in the diving pool was a nice dark green today. Is it racist to mention that?

It's not racist, but it's something a racist would be more likely to rant about

[Aeson]

It's racist against green people. Why do you think white or blue people are superior to model swimming pools after?

[Thoth]

All water matters.

[Dinner]

Giancarlo, I am sorry I encouraged you. I knew nothing but nonsense would come out of your mouth but I encouraged you anyway. I will stop doing that.

[Dinner]

well, to take one problem, why is the baia de guanabara full of sewage? the cleanup has been totally beset by corruption and incompetence, but what of the underlying situation? rio's population has increased tenfold in less than 3 generations, to say nothing of the satellite cities. many people live in slums that lack proper infrastructure, and so people simply direct their waste into the bay. although treatment capacity has been increased, it is not sufficient, and there are many areas that require further urbanisation works. basically, there is decades of work to do.

then you might ask, whence did all these people appear? and thus you get into the land question, the 1964 coup, etc.

If you want to decrease corruption we all know the legal steps which need to happen with police work. A less obvious but no less important part is draining the swamp and reducing opportunities for corruption by privitizing publicly pwned companies, deregulation so that there are fewer opportunities for corrupt officials to extract bribes, and generally shrinking the size of government down to only the functions it really needs to provide. Less opportunity for corruption means less corruption is likely to take place.

That goes hand in hand with the police work and transparency work.

[Dinner]

Dinner sounds like a Republican

Economically there really is a right and wrong answer to questions like this. On social issues I tend towards the left and where it can be done efficiently I like to see more goverment to help the poor and middle class.

[Giancarlo]

Giancarlo, I am sorry I encouraged you. I knew nothing but nonsense would come out of your mouth but I encouraged you anyway. I will stop doing that.

You don't live in the real world. And you just proved with your total nonsense. Hypocrite.

[Giancarlo]

If you want to decrease corruption we all know the lehal steps whivh need to happen with police work. A less obvious but no less important part is draining the swamp and reducing opportunities for corruption by privitizing publicly pwned companies, deregulation so that thete are fewer opportunities for corrupt officials to extract bribes, and generally shrinking the size of government down to only the functions it really needs to provide. Less opportunity for corruption means less corruption is likely to take place.

That goes hand in hand with the police work and transparency work.

Privatization failed miserably in Argentina. Your trickle down nonsense was proven wrong time and time again. You are so wrong. Shrinking the size of government so private businesses can steal more. Like we can trust corrupt businessmen to have the interests of the country at heart. Privatization and reducing government actually increases corruption. And regulatory agencies are incapable of enforcing laws because their funding is stripped.

[Dinner]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Brazilian_government_enterprises

That is a list of 149 state owned companies which should get privitized if you really are interested in decreasing corruption and opportunities for politocians to be corrupt. Give them fewer opportunities for corruption, make it so private companies don't need to fill out a thousand and one forms for even simple things and you decrease opportunities for the corrupt to be corrupt.

Also, despite Fez's mad ravings, yes, poor people actually do see their living standards go up when the price of the things they need to live goes down. Also more open economies just tend to be more dynamic economies and that helps the poor most of all because it means they are more likely to find work. Hell, free trade would even lower the cost of those sewage projects we were talking about so Brazil can actually modernize more quickly and become less of a flaming dumpster fire of a country.

[The Mad Monk]

...a flaming fire...

[C0ckney]

If you want to decrease corruption we all know the legal steps which need to happen with police work. A less obvious but no less important part is draining the swamp and reducing opportunities for corruption by privitizing publicly pwned companies, deregulation so that there are fewer opportunities for corrupt officials to extract bribes, and generally shrinking the size of government down to only the functions it really needs to provide. Less opportunity for corruption means less corruption is likely to take place.

That goes hand in hand with the police work and transparency work.

what does that have to do with sewage in the baia de guanabara? you're just doing the selfsame thing you did before. you're applying a ready-made solution to a problem you do not understand.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...nt_enterprises

That is a list of 149 state owned companies which should get privitized if you really are interested in decreasing corruption and opportunities for politocians to be corrupt. Give them fewer opportunities for corruption, make it so private companies don't need to fill out a thousand and one forms for even simple things and you decrease opportunities for the corrupt to be corrupt.

Also, despite Fez's mad ravings, yes, poor people actually do see their living standards go up when the price of the things they need to live goes down. Also more open economies just tend to be more dynamic economies and that helps the poor most of all because it means they are more likely to find work. Hell, free trade would even lower the cost of those sewage projects we were talking about so Brazil can actually modernize more quickly and become less of a flaming dumpster fire of a country.

really? so just taking one of those at random, since you obviously know what all these various companies do, please justify privatising the Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre and explain how such a move will benefit the brazilian taxpayer.

[Giancarlo]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...nt_enterprises

That is a list of 149 state owned companies which should get privitized if you really are interested in decreasing corruption and opportunities for politocians to be corrupt. Give them fewer opportunities for corruption, make it so private companies don't need to fill out a thousand and one forms for even simple things and you decrease opportunities for the corrupt to be corrupt.

Also, despite Fez's mad ravings, yes, poor people actually do see their living standards go up when the price of the things they need to live goes down. Also more open economies just tend to be more dynamic economies and that helps the poor most of all because it means they are more likely to find work. Hell, free trade would even lower the cost of those sewage projects we were talking about so Brazil can actually modernize more quickly and become less of a flaming dumpster fire of a country.

You are the new Fez. Wikipedia Fez. 149 various companies you brought up lmao. Here are some facts for you:

I remember Argentinian President Menem privatizating vast industries in Argentina with highly disastrous ramifications. Aerolineas Argentina was a strong state owned industry which was privatized haphazardly and went towards insolvency. The privatizations led to one of the biggest defaults in history and an economic meltdown in 2001.

You want to turn a country into a corporatist state with no regulation and you are deluded by a false Reaganomics fantasy of trickle down economics. Your trickle down nonsense doesn't help the poor. The poor in countries that privatizated vast industries actually became more poor and impoverished.

You want to slash public funding because you hate it. Public funding is required to have an educated population with a proper safety net. You want to destroy regulatory agencies. The same agencies entrusted to prevent mass private sector abuse, including the same sort of abuse that led to the 2007-08 meltdown. Your deregulation would have horrific effects and you sound just like Donald Trump did in that stupid economic speech. The only flaming dumpster here is your simplistic argument.

[Giancarlo]

what does that have to do with sewage in the baia de guanabara? you're just doing the selfsame thing you did before. you're applying a ready-made solution to a problem you do not understand.



really? so just taking one of those at random, since you obviously know what all these various companies do, please justify privatising the Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre and explain how such a move will benefit the brazilian taxpayer.

He is a talking head with his Chicago and Reagan economic viewpoints. I saw privatization destroy a country and at the time I was too deluded myself to see it. I didn't really feel bad for Argentina until after I left and had an education. I believed more capitalism would have helped, when in fact it was the problem.

The entire country had an economic meltdown in 2001 because of privatization.

Dinner sounds like Trump did in that idiotic economic speech. He is having his own meltdown.