The Financial Times begins its Anti-Lula Campaign with this collection of the comments of ‘Free Marketeers’ , for want of a better term.
What might the reader think of Mr. Stott’s membership in the ‘Institute of The Americas’ ?
This on the Institute of the Americas web page:
For nearly 40 years, the Institute of the Americas has promoted sound public policy and fostered cooperation between public and private sector stakeholders across the hemisphere.
From the mission statement of this organization :
Our diverse programs emphasize innovation and technological advance as the key to building 21st century economies in the Americas.
To be a catalyst for promoting economic development and integration, emphasizing the role of the private sector, as a means to improve the economic and social well being of the people of the Americas.
We build bridges across the Americas — linking business leaders, policymakers, teachers, and students to advance education, share ideas, and facilitate opportunities. We help understand and catalyze innovation in core sectors, including: energy & sustainability, , life sciences & biotech, and the digital economy as it pertains to these core, productive activities.
Here is a selection from Mr. Michael Stott’s essay:
In a decision for which the adjective “surprise” hardly seems adequate, Supreme Court justice Luiz Edson Fachin ruled that the provincial court in southern Brazil which had convicted and imprisoned the leftwing icon on corruption charges in 2017 had no jurisdiction to try the case.
The shockwaves from the decision were immense: Lula’s fate has polarised Latin America’s biggest nation for years, bitterly dividing left-wingers who idolised him for his generous welfare policies from those on the right, who saw him and his Workers’ party, or PT, as the embodiment of mismanagement and corruption.
Monica de Bolle, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute in Washington, said she thought the surprise ruling quashing Lula’s convictions was likely to stand, not least because Bolsonaro had made so many enemies among the judiciary with his constant attacks on judges. “What I see happening is a reckoning with the fact that Bolsonaro is a massive threat to institutional stability,” she said. “The calculation thus is: ‘What is least destabilising?’”
What might the reader think of this Los Angeles Times essay about Peterson and by extension his ‘Institute’?
Headline Unmasking the most influential billionaire in U.S. politics
Who’s the most influential billionaire business figure in national politics?
If you answered one of the Koch brothers (Charles or David) or George Soros, you’re wearing your partisan blinders. The former are known for their devotion to conservative causes, the latter to liberal. In either case, you’re wrong.
The most influential billionaire in America is Peter G. Peterson. The son of Greek immigrants, Peterson, 86, served as Commerce secretary under President Nixon, then became chairman and chief executive of Lehman Bros. Subsequently, he made his big money as co-founder of the Wall Street private equity firm Blackstone Group.
Peterson doesn’t attract venom from the left like the Koch family or bile from the right like Soros. In Washington, he’s treated with sedulous respect as a serious thinker about public policy willing to support earnest public discussion with cold cash. His money backs a large number of think tanks across the political spectrum; he has started a news outlet churning out articles about fiscal matters and is funding a high school curriculum aimed, according to its creators at Columbia University, at “teaching kids about the national debt.”
This reader fully understands that here is the central concern of Michael Stott, The Institute of the Americas, The Financial Times and Monica de Bolle.
Investors’ worries reflected not only the risk of a Lula victory but also the concern that, faced with an electoral challenge from his old nemesis, Bolsonaro would abandon any remaining pretence at market-friendly reforms and lean towards even more of the expensive populist giveaways than he has approved so far, straining the country’s dire finances further.
Bolsonaro’s ‘Market -friendly reforms’ are under threat from the possibility, the potentiality of a Lula victory.