Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now, seriously, Brazil has no bright future ahead unless it starts to invest seriously in public education. Our public education system is a shame.
The current minister of Education has some good plans, since he was governor of the state where I live, the state of Ceará, a relativelly poor state that is the undisputable leader in public education in Brazil in the past 15 years. If he is able to implement the public education model that was implemented in the state of Ceará in the past 15 years in a nationwide scale, maybe, just maybe, Brazil may have a bright future in the 2040's.
There is no miracle. Education is a long term investment.
Location: Miami (prev. NY, Atlanta, SF, OC and San Diego)
7,482 posts, read 6,665,549 times
Reputation: 6798
Well Brazil is the highest ranked Latin American nation in terms of GDP (8th in the world, having just surpassed Italy), is one of only 2 Latin American countries to host an Olympics, is hosting the G20 economic forum in November, (and who else generates $50M+ of revenue by hosting concerts that attract 1.5 - 4 million people??..lol).
Last edited by elchevere; 05-06-2024 at 07:20 AM..
Now, seriously, Brazil has no bright future ahead unless it starts to invest seriously in public education. Our public education system is a shame.
The current minister of Education has some good plans, since he was governor of the state where I live, the state of Ceará, a relativelly poor state that is the undisputable leader in public education in Brazil in the past 15 years. If he is able to implement the public education model that was implemented in the state of Ceará in the past 15 years in a nationwide scale, maybe, just maybe, Brazil may have a bright future in the 2040's.
There is no miracle. Education is a long term investment.
While education is important, I think there is a general overestimation of just how much can education achieve in developing a country.
A good example is Cuba. In the past 50 years or so it has improved its education with probably having the best educated population in Latin America. Has it been enough to economically lift Cuba? The Dominican Republic was much poorer and less developed when Fidel Castro rose to power in 1959. Hardly no Cubans migrated to the Dominican Republic while there was a few Dominicans in Cuba, particularly in Havana. Fastforward to today and not only is the Dominican Republic richer than Cuba, but there is a flow of Cubans to Dominican Republic thag is greater than Dominicans moving to Cuba. Plus, along with Panama and Chile, the DR is among the few countries in Latin America that is closing the gap between the standards of living in developed countries and that of the developing ones. All other countries in Latin America are either not having any change in this respect or the gap is actually increasing. All of this achieved despite the Cuban population is overall better educated than the Dominican population.
The movers and shakers in each country are a minority and it’s them that have a great incidence in the economic development of a country. They are the business owners, the investors, the innovators, the intellectuals, etc. Most people aren’t those types. So while education is important, it doesn’t really matter if the population as a whole has the best education. Just look at Cuba, a well educated population and a country that is going nowhere. Now, it could also be said that what is hindering Cuba is its political system, but then you have to ask yourself: the well educated Cubans can’t figure out that they need a change in the political system?
As for the education level of Brazil, you say Ceará has the best education system in Brazil and it probably does. You also say that it’s a poor state, but if Brazil overall was to have an education system similar to Ceará it would develop better. Do you not see the contradiction between the education system of Ceará and that it still is one of the poorer states? So Brazilian states that are richer and more developed than Ceará have a worse education system? Shouldn’t the overall education produce the opposite results?
It’s like those IQ averages. Some countries have higher than others, but in every country there are all IQ types from geniuses to dumber than a rock. In the USA, which is a wealthy developed country, the average IQ is around 100. While a person at that level is smart enough, that isn’t particularly genius level. Those that are truly geniuses are a minority. Can a country get ahead when most of its population aren’t geniuses? Well, look at the USA. It’s safe to assume it has a better standards of living than most countries and that’s something that didn’t fall from the sky. All of that with a population where most aren’t geniuses.
I’m not confused since the entire time it has been about the invasions of Brazil to its neighboring countries. Why go back to colonial times before Brazil existed as an independent country?
Right, I guess that’s why Brazil sent the uruguayan government at Montevideo an ultimatum, the not compliance of that initiated the Brazilian invasion. Lets not even ignore the Brazil effectively removed an Uruguayan government and put in its place a pro-Brazilian government. Hmm, where have I seen that happen before?
You guys probably get a history lesson where Brazil is seen in a better light.
Here it’s again, an attempt to soften Brazil’s wrong doing of killing most of Paraguay’s population in their own land. Wiping out the population of a country in its one land isn’t somethkng that can be spinned into anything positive or “less bad.” Very few countries in the Western Hemisphere know what it is like to have outsiders invade and kill/make flee away out of fear people from their own land, on top of that civilians.
Anyways, the point here is that Brazil did took it upon itself to invade several of its neighbors and its military has gone beyond its cope by helping wipe out most of the population of a country in its own land. There are militaries that had the chance to invade and wipe out an entire civilian population and it choose not too. The thought of violating another people’s right to rule themselves is not even entertained. It could had also toppled their government and put in its place a puppet president and yet, it didn’t do that either. That’s an example of a country having an military who’s purpose is defend the country vs attacking someone else’s countries since whatever it does stops at the borders. Brazil has a history where clearly that has not been case. Perhaps now invading other countries is not something Brazil would even think of doing, but it did in the past.
Even in Brazil, what is taught and said is that the triple alliance Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil (led by Brazil) joined together for a war against Paraguay and decimated that country.
There is even a laughable version that says that the triple alliance attacked Paraguay at the behest of England because Paraguay was industrializing and becoming a competitor for England. What they were actually producing were some simple weapons.
I also believed these stories until I checked the historical facts in depth.
It is even omitted that Paraguay started the war, that they invaded the 3 countries, kidnapped a Brazilian governor, that they had been arming and preparing for war for many years, that the population and economic difference at that time was not as great as it is today (Brazil had 4 million people and Paraguay over 1 million) that the people blindly followed a dictator, that the male population was decimated not because the troops of the triple alliance attacked civilians, but because the Paraguayans fought literally to the last man, whether they were old people or children.
It looks a lot like what we saw with Hitler in the Second World War. If the dictator and leaders are not killed the regime never end.
While education is important, I think there is a general overestimation of just how much can education achieve in developing a country.
A good example is Cuba. In the past 50 years or so it has improved its education with probably having the best educated population in Latin America. Has it been enough to economically lift Cuba? The Dominican Republic was much poorer and less developed when Fidel Castro rose to power in 1959. Hardly no Cubans migrated to the Dominican Republic while there was a few Dominicans in Cuba, particularly in Havana. Fastforward to today and not only is the Dominican Republic richer than Cuba, but there is a flow of Cubans to Dominican Republic thag is greater than Dominicans moving to Cuba. Plus, along with Panama and Chile, the DR is among the few countries in Latin America that is closing the gap between the standards of living in developed countries and that of the developing ones. All other countries in Latin America are either not having any change in this respect or the gap is actually increasing. All of this achieved despite the Cuban population is overall better educated than the Dominican population.
The movers and shakers in each country are a minority and it’s them that have a great incidence in the economic development of a country. They are the business owners, the investors, the innovators, the intellectuals, etc. Most people aren’t those types. So while education is important, it doesn’t really matter if the population as a whole has the best education. Just look at Cuba, a well educated population and a country that is going nowhere. Now, it could also be said that what is hindering Cuba is its political system, but then you have to ask yourself: the well educated Cubans can’t figure out that they need a change in the political system?
As for the education level of Brazil, you say Ceará has the best education system in Brazil and it probably does. You also say that it’s a poor state, but if Brazil overall was to have an education system similar to Ceará it would develop better. Do you not see the contradiction between the education system of Ceará and that it still is one of the poorer states? So Brazilian states that are richer and more developed than Ceará have a worse education system? Shouldn’t the overall education produce the opposite results?
It’s like those IQ averages. Some countries have higher than others, but in every country there are all IQ types from geniuses to dumber than a rock. In the USA, which is a wealthy developed country, the average IQ is around 100. While a person at that level is smart enough, that isn’t particularly genius level. Those that are truly geniuses are a minority. Can a country get ahead when most of its population aren’t geniuses? Well, look at the USA. It’s safe to assume it has a better standards of living than most countries and that’s something that didn’t fall from the sky. All of that with a population where most aren’t geniuses.
I think Argentina and Uruguay are even better examples than Cuba.
Today, education in Argentina has fallen a lot, not so much in Uruguay, but almost 100 years ago they already had universal education with easy access to universities for anyone interested.
Even today, any average Argentine over 30 years old has an educational level that in other Latin American countries is more common only among the middle class.
Even with an educated population, the lack of political and economic stability made it impossible for the country to develop or keep developed.
Some argentineans said that the problem was that most of this educated people was in the humanities and not in science and engineering, but I think it is more a question of market demand because as these countries were not as industrialized there was not as much demand for the latest.
In the case of Brazil, education is really a problem.
Brazil is a very unequal country, slavery was abolished just over 120 years ago, which is not a long time, about 4 generations, and all the descendants of slaves and even white rural workers in general, the government never bothered to educate them , because their type of work did not even require literacy, and because landowners did not like educated workers who demanded more of their rights.
On the other hand, in the cities, even in colonial times, Brazil always had a large elite and middle class population of Portuguese origin. At the time of independence, not only the royal family but also the entire Portuguese court was in Brazil, a much more educated population. Then came European immigrants who were more educated than the local working population and with a culture of investing in their children's education.
So the main factor of Brazilian inequality is having half of the population with a high educational background and the other half being children or grandchildren of illiterate or semi-illiterate people since primary and high school education was only universalized in Brazil at the end of the last century.
Now the problem is to achieve good quality in public schools, that is to reach the OECD average level, with mass education for the part of the population that does not have a good educational family base.
When Brazil began to grow rapidly in the past decades, as Brazil's economy is based on modern industries and services, the lack of qualified labor always appeared. Let's see if with this current, more educated generation this problem will be less, because we are growing again constantly after the pandemic.
Even today, any average Argentine over 30 years old has an educational level that in other Latin American countries is more common only among the middle class.
Makes you wonder with a general population with such a good education, why is it Argentina has been sliding backwards in standard of living and national wealth? The Argentina of today is the result of the “Argentinians above 30” since those under 30 aren’t old enough to have any real effect on the development of a country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EVANGELISTTI
Even with an educated population, the lack of political and economic stability made it impossible for the country to develop or keep developed.
They were not educated enough to know they needed stability and how to get it.
As said previously, there are countries right in Latin America where the quality of the education of the general population is less than in Argentina (the same case with Cuba) and yet, they have been doing much better than Argentina.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EVANGELISTTI
Some argentineans said that the problem was that most of this educated people was in the humanities and not in science and engineering, but I think it is more a question of market demand because as these countries were not as industrialized there was not as much demand for the latest.
That’s an excuse. In every country most university titles are given in the humanities. Plus, even in developed countries like the USA, most of the population doesn’t have a university degree and among the less than 30% that do, most end up doing things that have nothing to do with what they studied and have their university degree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EVANGELISTTI
When Brazil began to grow rapidly in the past decades, as Brazil's economy is based on modern industries and services, the lack of qualified labor always appeared. Let's see if with this current, more educated generation this problem will be less, because we are growing again constantly after the pandemic.
Brazil isn’t converging with enough other Latin American countries despite Brazil isn’t the richest of the bunch. It isn’t closing the gap with developed countries. It will be extremely hard to improve overall standards of living to become the forefront on a global stage without those two things. Whatever improvements that may be seen in the average Brazilian standards of living will be limited to the typical progression of most countries, but the gap with the standard of living of the wealthiest societies will either exist as it is or be greater. As said before, there are countries that are converging the most with other Latin American countries and are closing the standards of living gap with developed countries with an overall education level similar to Brazil’s.
Even in Brazil, what is taught and said is that the triple alliance Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil (led by Brazil) joined together for a war against Paraguay and decimated that country.
There is even a laughable version that says that the triple alliance attacked Paraguay at the behest of England because Paraguay was industrializing and becoming a competitor for England. What they were actually producing were some simple weapons.
I also believed these stories until I checked the historical facts in depth.
It is even omitted that Paraguay started the war, that they invaded the 3 countries, kidnapped a Brazilian governor, that they had been arming and preparing for war for many years, that the population and economic difference at that time was not as great as it is today (Brazil had 4 million people and Paraguay over 1 million) that the people blindly followed a dictator, that the male population was decimated not because the troops of the triple alliance attacked civilians, but because the Paraguayans fought literally to the last man, whether they were old people or children.
It looks a lot like what we saw with Hitler in the Second World War. If the dictator and leaders are not killed the regime never end.
Even in the USA, there isn’t much focus on the Vietnam War but more on the World Wars. I bet there isn’t much focus on the invasion of Iraq since according to the then administration, they were certain Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. That was in the early 2000’s and now its 2024 and still waiting for those weapons to appear.
With Afghanistan it was even worse since the entire concept of democracy (something imposed by the USA to replace the less democratic system they had there) collapsed and the USA had to leave with its tail between its legs. I wouldn’t doubt if what happened in Afghanistan isn’t much taught in the USA schools.
Both cases are examples of good intentions leaving a trail of deception and defeat. Getting rid of mass destruction in Iraq is good as long the said weapons exist. Democracy is thought by many, certainly by Americans because it has worked very well for the USA, to be the best form of government that produces the best results. Except there are things like culture that get in the way and that is the main reason why something that works well in one place doesn’t have the same results in another. Certainly, people had to think that once democracy is installed, its natural superiority to all other political systems would ensure it never falls and is replaced with another system. Except the opposite is exactly what happened in Afghanistan.
The underlining concept you will often find among Americans is the belief that if the world was more like the USA, it would be better. The USA has always had this proselytizing quality since its inception as a superpower and has attempted to do that in most places it invaded around the world. The thing is that it isn’t possible to make the world like the USA and it’s naive to think whatever works in the USA will have the same results elsewhere. To believe that, you have to ignore many other factors that never go away simply because they are ignored.
The point is that every country tries to diminish the aspects of the past where they were very obviously wrong or too evil and do the opposite in situations where the results were more favorable. I don’t see why Brazil would be any different.
Makes you wonder with a general population with such a good education, why is it Argentina has been sliding backwards in standard of living and national wealth? The Argentina of today is the result of the “Argentinians above 30” since those under 30 aren’t old enough to have any real effect on the development of a country.
They were not educated enough to know they needed stability and how to get it.
As said previously, there are countries right in Latin America where the quality of the education of the general population is less than in Argentina (the same case with Cuba) and yet, they have been doing much better than Argentina.
That’s an excuse. In every country most university titles are given in the humanities. Plus, even in developed countries like the USA, most of the population doesn’t have a university degree and among the less than 30% that do, most end up doing things that have nothing to do with what they studied and have their university degree.
Brazil isn’t converging with enough other Latin American countries despite Brazil isn’t the richest of the bunch. It isn’t closing the gap with developed countries. It will be extremely hard to improve overall standards of living to become the forefront on a global stage without those two things. Whatever improvements that may be seen in the average Brazilian standards of living will be limited to the typical progression of most countries, but the gap with the standard of living of the wealthiest societies will either exist as it is or be greater. As said before, there are countries that are converging the most with other Latin American countries and are closing the standards of living gap with developed countries with an overall education level similar to Brazil’s.
I see that you Hispanics make biased analyzes of Argentina due to the rivalry that exists because they supposedly feel superior because they are a whiter country.
As for reducing or increasing the gap with developed countries, this doesn't mean anything, this can only happen for a period of time if the country's economy does not have solid foundations for growth.
Brazil was, like China in the 1970s, the fastest growing country in the world at rates of 10% per year, but there came a time when it stopped, when it reached its maximum potential, because Brazil never had all the bases of a developed country.
The same will happen with the Dominican Republic, the country will reach its maximum growth potential based on tourism, (source of foreign currency) and products and services for the relatively developed domestic market.
If the country does not develop to compete internationally in some technological niches, it falls into the trap of middle-class countries, which, reaching this stage of development, stop growing and never reach the level of the most developed countries.
There are countries like those in southern Europe, economies that had their primary growth engine in tourism like the Dominican Republic, they are considered low-income developed countries. They never reached the level of the richest.
Is it better to be a middle-income or developed low-income country than to be poor? Of course, but to say that such a country is on a path of no return to becoming developed is another thing. There are many factors that must all be adjusted at the same time.
I will suggest to you a book which I read many years ago. As far as I know, it’s in English only.
“Intellectuals and Society” by Thomas Sowell, a very brilliant African American economist.
Read it for the underlying message.
Sowell wrote a lot about Germans, and how immigrants from Germany helped develop the countries they went to. Think about how many industries in North and South America were started by German immigrants. Maybe southern Brazil is wealthier because of its German character.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
