Lula's election and what lies ahead

It's been a while since I wrote about the Brazilian crisis (a summary of the previous catastrophic election here). In part that election and the continued crisis explains why I have written less, not just about Brazil. This has been a long economic depression that started in 2015 (see graph), with a coup in 2016 and since 2018 the added problem of a right-wing authoritarian regime that won an election that was only possible with the political proscription of Lula. But at least the political problems have started to be solved with this election.

 

Source: IMF. Peak in 2014 (2022 estimated)

The Lula election last Sunday is a redemption story, no doubt. Not only because there was no prove of his corruption, even if corruption existed,* and even though the international press, including the reputable media continues to refer to him as an ex-convict. Corruption is a problem, but the one that matters is associated to the needs of governance in Congress, and the current Bolsonaro government has dealt with payments to members of congress through the so-called secret budget. And that will not vanish, and that could cause problems in the future. But in all fairness, the size of that and the implications in terms of the functioning of the political system, let alone for economic growth or the well-being of the population are far from clear.

At any rate, that is a secondary issue. The problems that Lula and his coalition will face are on the economic front. And not because Brazil is facing a serious crisis, like neighboring Argentina. This is the worst economic crisis in Brazilian history, but is purely political, and has been aggravated by the decisions taken by the Brazilian authorities, starting in 2015 with Dilma, trying to stave off the coup, and then with Temer and Bolsonaro.

The main problem is the limit on government spending, the ceiling that would limit the ability of the government to promote not just a more solid recovery, but more importantly one that allows for increasing real wages for those at the bottom. Fiscal rules were put in place for this reason, for the possibility of a left of center government, and that is why financial markets were convulsed by Lula's talk this week, and the real devalued. Not that it matters much.

There will be some arrangement that will allow the expansion of spending to cover the social transfers, and some additional social spending that was left out of Bolsonaro's last budget. But fiscal conservatism will be something that will have to be combated throughout the next four years, and not just from the opposition. Many within the government's complex coalition will be for austerity. There will be plenty of time to talk about that, and I would normally be pessimistic.

However, two things make me a bit optimistic (which is not very characteristic). It is important to differentiate what Lula does from what he says, or even what he believes. This is true of many on the left in Latin America. Before the previous Pink Tide, two decades ago, I was more concerned with the pleas for fiscal responsibility of many on the left. As it turns out, many of the progressive governments did expand social spending, and promoted an acceleration of growth, including Lula, and a significant expansion of real wages. Someone will say, this is not 2003, and there is no commodity boom that will lead to growth, or at least the easing of the external constraint.

However that was not what explained the Brazilian growth in the first Lula government. The external constraint was eliminated to some extent by the boom in commodity prices, but the fundamental source of foreign reserves was financial, and resulted from the relatively high remuneration for assets in domestic currency. That was to some extent possible because interest rates in advanced economies have been low in the center, and they will likely remain low (even if they are increasing right now). So on that front it is possible to expect an acceleration of government spending, and higher transfers to the relatively poor, with higher real wages at the bottom. Besides, Bolsonaro is gone, and that should be reason enough to be optimistic about the future.

* There is no evidence of Lula's personal corruption. The infamous Triplex apartment, for example, is clearly not his, and he never benefited in any other proven way. Many Latin American politicians, including Eduardo Cunha, which was instrumental in Dilma Roussef's impeachment, does appear in the Panama Papers. Paulo Maluf had undeclared accounts in Switzerland, just to name another Brazilian politician for whom there is objective, material evidence of corruption. To suggest that Lula knew about corruption, is more or less like saying that FHC knew about the buying of votes in congress to allow for his reelection (or many other issues during his government). In other words, is to say the obvious.

Boycott the Rio Olympics to Defend Brazilian Democracy

By Thomas Palley

Terrible anti-democratic events are now unfolding in Brazil with the constitutional coup against President Dilma Rousseff, organized through a cooked-up impeachment trial.

The impeachment coup represents a naked attempt by corrupt neoliberal elements to seize power in Brazil. Make no mistake: it is a threat to democracy and social progress in Brazil, Latin America, and even the global community at large.

If Brazilian voices concur, the world should respond by boycotting the Rio Olympics scheduled for this August.

Read full text here.

Brazilian coup and US misinformation

Brazil has an enormous past ahead

As I suggested last month the coup had succeeded. Today Dilma Rousseff was effectively removed from the presidency. No real news here. I just want to correct, to some extent, the huge misinformation campaign in course in the US.  Monica de Bolle was saying many incorrect things on NPR this week (for example, that "the origins of the program called Bolsa Familia came from actually Cardoso's government, so the previous government, the PSDB government that came before the Worker's Party government," when it actually came ideas from Betinho and Cristovam Buarque from the Workers' Party's, PT in Portuguese, government in Brasilia; note that the lie is that she seems to indicate they like spending on the poor, but will have to cut social programs because the new government must be fiscally responsible), which is not a surprise.*

Today the New York Times pitched in also spreading incorrect news. The Times suggests that Rousseff "is charged with violating budgetary laws in order to conceal a deficit before what she anticipated would be a tough 2014 re-election campaign, borrowing money from banks that the executive branch controls to fund domestic programs, and making changes to the federal budget without congressional approval." Actually, the impeachment is based on delays on payments to public banks in 2015, not 2014, and, hence, not related to the re-election campaign. And the primary balance was changed and approved by congress. But the mistakes are all over the place (listen to this on Bloomberg radio; yeah things are going to be wonderful because markets are confident).

The worst part of all of these, and there are many things, not the least the collapse of the economy and the brutal increase in unemployment, is the criminalization of fiscal policy. Note that the Workers' Party maintained primary surpluses for almost all of its period in power. For the most part because a growing economy implies higher revenue. It should be noted that people on the left, like yours truly, always complained of the difference between the primary surplus (red line) and the nominal deficit (blue line), averaging 6% of GDP. The gap corresponds to interest payments that go mainly to the wealthy (see the book on the side for more on that).

It is only with the crisis itself that the fiscal accounts worsened, and that went hand in hand with austerity policies. Actually more primary spending, and less financial spending, would have accelerated growth and revenue without creating any fiscal problem. And yes net debt went up, but remains below the initial level (see below). And more importantly the debt is in domestic currency. Foreign debt and the current account are not really problems, since Brazil has a pile of international reserves and has access to international capital markets that maintain (and will continue to do so) low interest rates.

There is no fiscal problem. There is, however, a backlash among the middle and upper classes against social programs, and the greater visibility of the poor in places that were reserved to the elites (airports, malls, universities, etc.) and a discomfort with the stronger rights for workers (for example maids; if you didn't see the movie The Second Mother you should, it would give you an idea of the social tensions in the country). This is a testament of how much the social hierarchy has been challenged, even by a relatively moderate left of center government. Don't be fooled, it is a coup, and as coups usually do it will turn on its enemies. They will try to jail Lula, not just to wreck his legacy, but more importantly because he seems still to be among the few viable politicians in the country.

*  PSDB stands for Brazilian Social Democracy Party in Portuguese (which in Brazilian politics is really conservative, not social democratic at all).