Vou postar isso aqui em portugues, que te explica direitinho a crise do real e como ela é o oposto dessa porcaria que você tentou escrever em ingles: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desvaloriza%C3%A7%C3%A3o_do_re...
"Para manter este sistema funcionando por mais tempo foi necessário injetar algumas dezenas de bilhões de dólares na manutenção do câmbio semi-fixo e das altas taxas de juros. Parte destes recursos vieram do aumento da dívida externa, que no período 1994-2000 saltou de US$ 120 bilhões para US$ 250 bilhões [3] . Outra parte veio dos processos de privatização das empresas estatais, que resultou na desnacionalização de empresas e serviços. Muitos economistas criticavam a manutenção de um câmbio valorizado por tanto tempo, já que a estabilização da inflação havia sido alcançada já em 1995."
Eu já sei que você é um retardado, mas se você acha que se endividar, manter o dolar aritificialmente a 1 real (jogando o preço dos produtos estrangeiros lá embaixo, ou seja: subsdiando a importação) é austeridade, não há nada que ninguém possa dizer pra você, rs.
Of course is this I'm saying our freaking retard!!! Oh my god, in which world do you live? You really think that the only economic theory that exists is this stupid bullshit people call "liberalism"? Von mises? Oh, boy...
Anyway, let's have another round of a friendly debate. Shall we?
> I never made these claims (about protectionism and WeChat) and Tencent (owner of Wechat) Employs more then 30,000 chineses (sic) (...) this is my one argument
You might not have realized, but when you say that WeChat is better for China (because it creates jobs and whatnot), you are exactly claiming that protectionist policies are good for the country.
We could have a longer debate about that (protectionism vs open market economic policies), but this has NOTHING to do with my original question. My question is "why is WeChat better for the users compared to Facebook? What makes WeChat better due to being closed and protected by the government?
You keep going to this argument related to it being "beneficial for the Country", I am talking about it being beneficial to the users that live in that country. Do you see the difference?
--
Regarding "real understandings of economics and politics": again, you are using bad data, and even if you were using the right data you still are reaching wrong conclusions that any honest economist would be able to point it out.
I don't know if you are doing this out of intellectual dishonesty or just confusion, but let me point a few examples:
- The article you linked says clearly that the devaluation post-FHC-reelection (1998) was of 40%. So the USD went to R$1,40, not $4,50 as you wrote.
- The problem with the artifical parity of USD:BRL and subsequent devaluation is not related to the cost of debt "in dollars". The problem was actually the opposite! The debt kept growing and the austerity policies kept being pushed to keep the BRL artifically strong. If we had then a free-floating exchange rate (like we have now), then the dollar price would rise, our exports would increase and we might have been able to keep a better trade balance.
The reason we didn't do any of that was that FHC Government needed to control inflation, and the only way that was possible by controlling the exchange rate and adjusting the budget. It was a bitter pill to swallow, but it was one that was very much needed. Had we not done that then, we would probably be today in a situation similar to Venezuela, completely in shambles.
- You still haven't retracted yourself in regards with the tax rate during FHC years. If you don't believe me, I will even give you a very pro-left source (http://jornalggn.com.br/blog/luisnassif/o-aumento-de-imposto...) to check it out.
--
To close up: I would appreciate very much if you could read carefully what I am writing instead of just (1) calling me names, (2) ignoring others that point out your factual mistakes and (3) trying to "win" by piling more and more about things that are not related to what was originally asked.
And this thread is already getting too deep, so if you really want to continue this you can send me an email, just take a look at my "about" section here.