Podcast Three Brothers is here. Speaking to you again is Rodrigo Chorró. Next to me is my brother, my brother Roberto Andrade, son, Borracha, at the mixing desk, operating our director Pedro Henrique. Hey Robertinho, how are you doing? Everything alright? Tell me, my brothers. Good? Tell me, my brother. Very good. How are you, man? Just high-level talk. The man is sharp, Robertinho. Extremely sharp. Oh, let me tell you. I feel like a lumberjack. You know what a lumberjack's life is like, right? He uses the axe all the time. Man, my God, the guy disappeared for a
while, spent some time studying, preparing his work, but he came back like this, he came back with blood in his eyes. Robertinho, what's that? Have you ever seen a member who says: "It was good, it seems like things improved a lot." In a good way, it seems much better. No, Pedro. What did you find there? "Things are tough, right, man? These debates are crazier than the next. But that's how it is. Those who know, know, right? The potential, I'd say almost limited, because it's history, he was already good, he improved. I think he'll continue improving,
always studying, perfecting, bringing knowledge, research, numbers, correct interpretation of the numbers. That's, man, incredible. Comrade Machado here with us. Hey, Gustavo? Robertinho, Rodrigo, always a pleasure. We're here to chat about the debates, Brazil, the world, whatever, whatever, man, you, I'll tell you, Machado, uh, we did an episode talking about China, right, the movement of capital throughout the world and, man , it's [ __ ] man, right? I don't like the things you say, but the numbers are there, right, Ma? Now, arguing with numbers isn't even that, Robertinho. Like, man, you can't deny it like that,
dude." You're an exemplary debater, you know? So, uh, we really need you, man. We really need you. You're extremely sharp, you're debating incredibly well. Well, that's right. How does this, how does this story go? Because you came from a different background, you came from a STEM course and then perhaps moved towards a more humanistic area. And how do you do this debating part ? Because it's a technique. Did you study it? It's a natural gift. No, I didn't study it. Uh, actually, I always had a foot in what people call the humanities, right? I always
did. But at the time, for survival reasons, I needed to go to a university where I could support myself during my studies, right? So, at the time, the humanities were quite complicated in that sense, right? So, that ended up leading me to take a computer science course, which is a course that allowed me to get an internship within six months, a year of starting the course, and become financially independent. I have younger siblings , especially my sister, and in order for her to go out and study, I had to no longer depend on my mother
or parents for anything. So I had to achieve that financial independence as quickly as possible. That's what led me to study computer science. Now, regarding debate, well, no, I 've never studied it from a technical point of view. The way I debate here, I'll give you an example. I have a friend from my teenage years, the beginning of my youth. We had a band when I was in high school, and I haven't seen him in many years, but we might even meet up soon. Well, he was watching the debates I 'm participating in here at
Três Irmãos, and in other places, and he contacted me. He said, "Man, I watch these debates and I'm reminded of our adolescence right away, the way you talk and discuss is exactly the same. I remember the discussions we had back then, me being 16, 17, 18 years old, right? So, that's my way, that's how I've always discussed, how I've always debated. Never... But do you think that this Marxist way of debating, the fact that you use material facts to debate, which I see you use a lot, right? You're a guy who's like, ' Man, don't
come at me with conspiracy theories. I want the facts here.' Do you think that contributes to debating with these guys from the other political spectrum?" Liberals, conservatives, everything? Of course, of course. I was talking about the debate in a technical sense, Right? I'm not saying that when I was 16 or 17, I was qualified to discuss these topics in depth, that wasn't the case. Uh, but that, Rodrigo, I share your obsession. Everything I read, study, I want to understand that process happening in reality. I don't take my mind to a parallel universe of concepts and
logical arguments, as if you left the world, went to this conceptual, abstract universe and then returned to the world. I have to identify, even if they are things that are not so direct, so obvious, but I have to identify in the world I'm living in all that set of relationships and explanations being given. Uh, so I've always had this, even when I think the analysis is wrong, I want to understand how the person managed to see that from their perspective. So I think about that a lot. I think this helps in the debate because, in
everything I study, I try to put myself in the perspective of the person who wrote it, even if it's the most atrocious, imaginable ideas. So, let's think about it here, I don't know, I'm reading Hitler's speeches , however repugnant they may be, but while I'm reading, I don't just think, "How absurd, how absurd, how absurd." I try to understand how that mind, based on the assumptions it had, on the conception it had, felt what it was saying. So I think this helps because in debates I always try to put myself in the perspective of what
I think is the common sense of the public. And when I say common sense of the public here, it's not pejorative. It's about where the majority of the public starts from regarding that topic, so I can talk to them. That's my obsession. Can I always do that? I don't think so, but I always think that way, you know? And that was the method you used, for example, to study Olavo de Carvalho. You tried to get inside his head and said, "I'm going to imagine what Olavo is thinking to say these things." I confess that I
didn't really understand Olavo de Carvalho so much. I started listening to his audios and then reading his writings. It was really a long time ago. It was before he gained Prominence, before he became famous, it was around 2008, 2009, something like that. When Olavo de Carvalho was read and listened to by a very small group in Brazil. He had that "Mídia Sem Máscara" portal , but he didn't have national projection, right? Nothing like that. He had an audience, his books sold well, but it was a very specific niche. What caught my attention about Olavo de
Carvalho, and what I identified from the beginning, was that his discourse, in my opinion, at the time, if the PT government entered a crisis, and... My opinion is that it was going to happen sooner or later, although that was the moment I met Lá de Carvalho, it was a peak moment for the government. I thought that speech had a great chance of gaining traction in reality, that is, of many people adhering to it. Uh-huh. That was when Machado? Around the end, beginning of Lula's second term, beginning of Lula's second term, he had 80% approval. He
had 80% approval. Exactly. Uh, so the first point that caught my attention was this. Uh, I said: "Man, Brazil was experiencing a process that had a dizzying development, In my opinion, which wasn't structural, it had a lot to do with commodity prices, which produced a very large surplus of income. Of course, it took root in other sectors to some extent, uh, value always circulates and all that, but I knew that was a short-term thing." Because that had to do with the initial rise of China, which led to exorbitant prices for oil and minerals. Even today,
if we consider the devaluation of the dollar and even during the pandemic, the price of oil and minerals hasn't come close to what it was in 2011, 2010, 2009, right? Of course, there were some policies that the PT (Workers' Party) implemented, those basic income policies that were expanded also helped. ...to boost the domestic market. It's not a structural issue, but you had the income to do it, and it helped to raise the domestic market a little. So, uh, but I knew that as soon as the weight of the commodities fell, they wouldn't stay at that
level forever. Sooner or later, that would explode. Brazil was structurally weaker at its base, meaning that Brazilian industry wasn't Developing; it was contracting. The sectors with the highest added value were leaving Brazil, the sectors of the point, all those things I'm discussing, weren't coming here. So I thought that sooner or later the PT government would enter an economic and political crisis. And I thought that Olaf's speech could resonate, because one sector that was greatly affected during the government was the middle class, right? Uh, what the government did was to give a little boost to the
social situation from below, it didn't touch the very rich, nor the big capital. Uh-huh. That never made so much money. They became stronger during the PT event. Now, here within the working class, you have everything from the poorest and most miserable sectors to the upper middle class. So what happened was a compression of all this, right? Uh, the most miserable sectors gained a little bit. Uh-huh. And the middle class sectors got closer to those poorer ones. And I saw that there was a large sector of Brazilian society that had a very high expectation for the
future, but whose possibilities were being reduced, you understand? And I thought that Olaf's speech could gain traction. I confess to you, and the people who knew me from that time know this. Including some, when I said that this thing could catch on, they laughed at me horribly, right? They said I was crazy, that this horse thing was a madman, but it gained a much greater repercussion than I ever imagined. Directly influencing the presidency of the Republic. It even directly influenced the presidency of the Republic. I remember that back in 2000, I mean 2008, 2000-11, 2012,
I watched his audios, his videos, read some of his books. Then I stopped and said, "No, I already understand more or less what he is, where he's going, what he thinks." And obviously I went to investigate other things, right? Uh-huh. And then I remember that my last job, when I worked in computer science, I moved to a company that was closer to my house, with slightly better working conditions. And when I arrived at the company, suddenly, at lunchtime, I looked at the computer screens and everyone was watching Olá de Carvalho. Wow, I arrived at the
company cafeteria, and everyone was discussing Olá de Carvalho's theses and Olá de Carvalho's books. So, the things I heard from him, I remember they were audio recordings, uh, it was a guy who would call him on the phone back then, he didn't even have that more professional radio setup he had. The guy would call him from the United States, ask questions, and he would talk and talk for two or three hours and post those audios there. I remember when I watched that, I had 800 views, 1200 views. Then I decided to go back to those
audios I initially listened to, and they had 150,000, 170,000, 200,000 views. I said, "Wow, that's more than I imagined." Besides the economic level of these people, do you think you can also identify a similarity in the level of academic training of these people, in the intellectual level of these people who consumed Olavo de Carvalho's work? Olavo. Ah, man, I think initially he was more successful with people with higher education, right? Uh, but then it became more generalized, it expanded beyond that, for sure. But it does resonate In the sense that, because he discussed Brazil from
certain specific interpretations of philosophy, history, etc., it either doesn't reach a more educated audience. That 's not a criticism. What I do also reaches a predominantly more educated audience, not only, but predominantly, right? Uh, but I think it became quite generalized, right? Uh, later, uh, but what I said there regarding this upper-middle sector is that I saw that this The sector, at the moment, when middle sectors aren't necessarily right, all that's nonsense, but in moments when they are so threatened, and this is normal, when their living conditions are threatened, they become willing to do anything,
they become more radicalized. Uh-huh. And it can go anywhere, you understand? And I saw this sector as potentially able to radicalize against the Lula government, and Olavo de Carvalho could have an insertion there. It's because I asked you about this academic similarity thing, because I know several Olavo followers like that, and they are people who study, right? I know they have an academic background, but It seems to me that at a certain point, after consuming a lot of Olavo, they refused to delve into other topics and said: "Look, just there, just Olavo, just Olavo, and
I'm going to follow that path." You understand? Of course, of course. The problem isn't intelligence, okay? There's a guy in Brazil who's been doing a really good job studying the right wing in Brazil and everything, and that's João César de Castro Rocha. I even recommend him, if you want to interview him, and I also recommend him. His work is extraordinary. He gives a characterization of Olavo that I completely agree with. Olavo isn't a stupid guy. Olavo is a guy with intelligence far above average, way above average, okay? Sorry to shock people who are... his intelligence
isn't just... it's far, far above the normal standard. And that's exactly the problem. People tend to think that intelligent people reach the right conclusions and stupid people reach the wrong conclusions. That has nothing to do with it, you understand? There are material interests, there are individual psychological characteristics and everything else. Uh-huh. Right? So, uh, intelligence Can be used precisely to make crazy articulations, uh, precisely to arrive at unusual conclusions, which are seemingly original, which shock those who encounter them, uh, to give meaning to what doesn't make sense. To be able to give meaning to what,
at first, doesn't make sense, you have to be intelligent. You don't have to be stupid, you understand? Uh, so, uh, I don't think it's a question of greater or lesser intelligence. Now, I think he gave, he, he, he created a vision, an interpretation of Brazil and everything else, that defined villains and heroes in a very clear way, you understand? One, he did study rhetorical techniques, in my opinion. For example, one of the methods he uses is continuous repetition, continuous repetition of his fundamental theses, in such a way that it becomes ingrained in the minds of
the group of people who follow him. It's a matter of time before the idea takes hold. Exactly. What he fights against, he creates caricatures of, he creates caricatured images that close the door to people looking at it carefully. I'll give you an Example. For instance, the nicknames he uses a lot, he doesn't call any of them by any derogatory nickname. Uh-huh. You understand? This seems like nonsense, but it's not. Because from the moment he creates the image of that person with that nickname, when referring to the person, automatically whoever follows him remembers the nickname, starts
laughing, already has a derogatory view, right? Yes. He has a very, very strong cult-like behavior. What is cult-like behavior? All the people who started to diverge from aspects of what he defended, he cut them off from the group and their ties immediately. He wanted, he wanted followers of his, by hook or by crook, who were willing to walk with him and follow him, right? So, if you analyze the trajectory of his group, he basically just keeps excluding people like that from the group. And he knows he's doing this because he wants contestation. Those who remain
are the ones who follow him faithfully. So you'll find that the ex-Olavists are numerous, like Nando Moura and so on. In the end, what's left is a very devoted core, followers of his figure To a rather extreme degree, right? Now, he does this by skillfully articulating these conspiratorial, global visions he has, etc. Another Something he relies on a lot, man, Brazil is at a level, the country culturally at a low-middle level, very low. And I'm not comparing it to, I don't know, Switzerland, no, comparing it to Argentina, comparing it to Bolivia. Brazil is a place
where there's no tradition of reading. I'll give you an example here. I ended up, for reasons that aren't relevant, a long time ago, staying in Bolivia for a few months. I even lived in Bolivia for a few months. I remember that the lady who sold hot dogs in front of the place where I was staying, who knew me, knew I was from Brazil, along with the colleague who was with me at the time, the first thing she wanted to know about Brazil was Brazilian cinema. Wow, she was selling hot dogs in front of the place,
she had no education, she hadn't studied, she wanted to know about Brazilian cinema. Then in the following days she brought a collection of 10, 15, 20 Bolivian films that she had at her house. And Luckily, my notebook had some recordings, I managed to record them, I took them to her, the Brazilian ones, she wanted to show me Bolivian cinema and wanted to get to know Brazilian cinema, directly linked to culture, you understand? Uh, for example, in Argentina, which is a country that today economically is far behind Brazil and is declining at a gigantic speed, but
in Brazil it's normal for a manual worker, etc., who isn't an intellectual, who isn't a university student, you'll see him on the bus going to work, working in his industry, and he's reading a literature book. That's normal for him, you understand? Brazil has a culture and it has to do with the Portuguese trajectory, with a lot of things that... I remember that when I was a child, my mother taught me to really like literature. Literature for me was like watching movies, it was like playing video games, I loved it. But I remember my friends coming
to play soccer with me, when they were from the countryside, right? You don't knock on the gate, you just open the front door and go in. When I saw him Coming, I'd run to hide the book I was reading. I was ashamed, man. Because it would be embarrassing if my classmates came in and saw that I was reading a book. You see? And that's not a Brazilian characteristic. So Olavo, who is a guy who's superficial in everything, but had a very vast culture, that he really did, a very vast culture. When he started listing all
those authors, all those books, giving a lot of historical references, the low cultural level of the country, especially of the supposedly educated middle intellectual sector, clashes with the things he says, because it seems like something from another world, because the cultural level here is very low. Uh-huh. Right? So, when he said, "Oh," he cited authors who said that anyone who seriously studies something has to read at least 100 books a year. People were like, perplexed, "My God, that's impossible." I'm saying, "If you read 50 pages a day, and if someone works doing that, it's expected
that they'll read about 50. You read 50 pages a day, that's 100 books a year, You understand? Yes. 50 pages a day equals 100 books a year." But for Brazil, that seems like one thing, right? So he played a lot with these things. Uh-huh. Right? So he impacted people and then he had a vision to present that seemed to answer the problems that were manifesting themselves more and more strongly in Brazil. And another thing, he was a pioneer in communication strategy, which is this social media strategy, perhaps even unconsciously, because he was like that, it
merged with social media, I don't know, this looser, more fluid, more informal language. Oh, Machado, you had all this perception. Olavo also managed to do this reading." Going back a bit to the "Bundas Comodes" (a Brazilian political term), the PT (Workers' Party) failed to grasp this. Internally, the PT didn't see that it would be a short-term solution, that they would have to take measures otherwise the Workers' Party's plans wouldn't be effective, right? No, what they were proposing to the population. This wasn't analyzed within the PT. Look, in my opinion, the PT... it arrives... They came
to power without any well-defined project for Brazil. And if you look at the documentation From that time, you'll see that. Even the FOM Zero project, which was implemented at the time, was entirely campaigned on; it was quite curious, I love to mention this example. The PT didn't know what Zero Hunger was. FOM Zero was just a marketing ploy during the campaign. Then, when Lula won the election for the first time, he said: "Now we have to see what F Zero is going to be, what are we going to do with it? What exactly are we
going to do with it?" The PT was very influenced internally. The figures who economically assumed control, these things within the PT, were, in fact, some nuances there, but from a school of thought that descends from Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who was the last president. What was Fernando Henrique Cardoso's idea? Fernando Henrique Cardoso is the guy who, and look, I'm not saying the entire PT ( Workers' Party) was like that, but the people who were at the forefront of the PT, if you take Guido Mantega, just to give an example here, who was Minister of Finance and
everything else, uh, he was from Cebrap, the same group that Fernando Henrique participated in, they shared very similar ideas. Uh, Fernando Henrique Cardoso is the author of the theory that justifies what the military dictatorship did. Yes, that justifies what the military dictatorship did in economic terms in Brazil. What did the military dictatorship do in Brazil? It consolidated a scheme that Fernando Henrique would call associated development, which is uh, the development of Brazil, the creation of a market. So, Brazil can develop by associating itself with foreign capital and thus trying to exploit the loopholes in this
association. So, we're going to bring foreign industries here to Brazil, we're going to open the Brazilian market to foreign industries. Capital of Brazilian origin is capital that, in a sense, wasn't without reason. It was quite obsolete, conservative capital . So it's better that this capital be swept away by foreign capital. You 'll create a new national bourgeoisie associated with this production chain of foreign capital, so the industries of household appliances, automobiles, and everything that settles here. And so it was a proposal to develop Brazil in association with foreign capital, Creating the Brazilian domestic market. The
military dictatorship consolidated this. It's like living off the leftovers. We let them develop, and they'll take only what's good. We keep what's left over. This wasn't similar to what China did, except it worked there and not here. What didn't happen? No, no. China had its own independent development. It used this massive presence of foreign capital there. And it was a different kind of presence. We can't forget that the presence of foreign capital in China wasn't to serve the Chinese domestic market, it was to serve the world market. True. External, right? But in parallel to that,
I'll give you an example. While China was opening up to allow iPhone factories to enter the country, the automotive sector was not. You said, "No, here's a technology we want to appropriate." Now that it's been opened up, when they've already consolidated, there were never any Volkswagen, General Motors, or Hyundai in China. They were in partnership with Chinese assembly companies. To give an example, China circumscribed things Very well. Look, these sectors here, A, B, C, and D, fine, foreign capital can come in, even to explore our domestic market, because we don't have the knowledge to do
that, we don't have the knowledge to do it, and we can't take that step at this moment. Now, these sectors here, like EFGH, fundamental for us, nobody touches these, it's totally different. China took the banking system, the financial banking system, which is a system totally controlled by the state. And the Chinese supply chain, for example, which includes inputs, infrastructure, and even within large companies, as I said, has nothing to do with what Brazil did. Brazil is about living off scraps; that was Fernando Henrique's thesis—living off scraps is better than... That's how we live outside of
that. So we have to try to live off of it. The reasoning seems to make sense. Now, the problem is that no clear strategy was defined regarding these leftovers that Brazil would take . But who consolidated this, okay? It was the military dictatorship. The Brazilian military dictatorship associated itself with foreign capital. It's no coincidence that it was a military dictatorship that Did this, because in Brazil there were two groups of capitalists, landowners linked to a still colonial Brazil. Yes, coffee production, all that stuff. And on the other side you had an industrial Brazil, but it
was an industrial Brazil that wanted a stronger domestic market, to remove certain privileges that came from this rural aristocracy, but it also wasn't willing to engage in any global battle in terms of bolder things, bolder changes; it was something for its own benefit, right? It wasn't something for the benefit of much power in São Paulo, right? It's no coincidence that you'll have, look, later with the Vargas government, you first have that so-called Constitutionalist Revolution of 1932. Brazil from 1930 to 1964 was a fractured Brazil between a São Paulo bourgeoisie, more or less associated with a
Rio de Janeiro bourgeoisie, and Getúlio, who came from the South, right, and represented a different project. The military dictatorship arrives kind of on top of all that and says: "No, here foreign capital and national capital will associate with him wherever possible." Uh-huh. You understand? It impresses me a lot, and when you look at the PT (Workers' Party), the PT's foundation Comes from revolutionaries who fought during the dictatorship. These people participated in the founding base of the PT, right? And we have great thinkers there. We can't deny that, right? José Dirceu, Breno Altman, José Genuíno, man.
Lula, no, Lula, because at that time Lula was involved in the union struggle, right? So, I'm really talking about people who dedicated their lives to studying, right? And, I don't know Dilma's story. If you can add to that, I don't know it. I'm talking about the people I know. She's part of that first phase of the guerrilla movement and everything else, where you had some groups formed. Yes. She was a revolutionary and certainly must have shared information, right? The path of the struggle was laid out. Uh-huh. How did they get lost in all that, man?
Actually, Rodrigo, the PT is an organization that, first of all, emerged as an organization with great, very great, influence, because it was in the wake of the largest workers' mobilizations of the last decades in the world, which is what happened in Brazil in the 70s and 80s. Today I think the new generation doesn't have A sense of what that was like. I'll just give an example in Belo Horizonte. The sector that had the most weight was the construction sector. Belo Horizonte in '78 and '80 was a city under construction; it grew from a little over
a hundred thousand inhabitants in the '50s to 1,200 by the end of the '70s. So, the construction industry was the largest sector, employing almost 200,000 workers in the metropolitan area. It was huge. A Brasília-like city was built there in BH. So, exactly during that period, BH, in the '60s and '70s, was a process of city construction. One of the famous construction strikes, in 1978, was similar to what happened with the metalworkers in São Paulo, and in Belo Horizonte, it was a major construction strike, although the metalworkers there also had considerable influence. Well, you have a
strike where you have 100,000, 150,000 people, like at Praça da Estação, in Belo Horizonte, the police try to contain and disperse it. The group takes the police cars, pulls all the officers out, puts them all upside down in a line, and sets them all on fire. You arrive with water cannons to disperse them. The people took the police water cannon truck And turned the water cannon back on the police cars and sent everyone away. What is this, man? Good heavens. No, then they say that Brazilians were peaceful, that we were tamed, that we were even
a little aggressive. That's an illusion. That's almost like a war. An illusion. And the process is victorious, there's nobody left. The police don't do that again. That's it. The processes in São Paulo were something absurd, you understand? Because of their organizational capacity... It was a very young, upper-class group that came to São Paulo as part of Brazil's urbanization process, facing all sorts of working conditions during that time, right in the middle of the military dictatorship. In fact, the dictatorship fell largely because of these uprisings. Uh-huh. Okay. Then the conciliation ended, as unfortunately all processes in
Brazil did, which led to the opening of the Republic. But I tell you that if it weren't for this context that led to the fall of the military dictatorship, for example, the 1988 Constitution in Brazil wouldn't have had the SUS (Unified Health System). So it was still a conciliation, but it was a conciliation that required a lot of concessions, you understand? It required a lot of concessions, right? That's how the SUS, for example, was created. And what was the PT (Workers' Party)? It was a large coalition that involved various organizations that were active within this
process. Well, and in the wake of this very strong movement, the PT (Workers' Party) emerged as a powerhouse, but the direction the PT would take wasn't 100% defined yet; there was a whole internal dispute in that sense. Several groups were there, and they couldn't understand each other internally. No, it's not that they couldn't understand each other because they had different visions. That's where this is going. Uh-huh. You understand? What the PT became is the group that won, the group of Zé deceu (a reference to a political figure) who came down, you understand? Uh, it's the
group that won. That's why I say, people are like, " Let's put aside our differences and just focus on what we have in common." No, our differences define what it will be. It defined what the PT was. Yes. What the PT was, the PT governments, and what they did was the strategy of the group that won, right? Well, there's a major trend within it, which is political maneuvering, and Zerd is one of the main leaders, right? He Became the overwhelmingly dominant group within the PT. Several other factions with very different views were defeated in the
normal internal struggle. And that's what prevailed, right? So, going back a few steps, we'll get to the PT quickly, I won't take too long. So, look, the period of the economic miracle during the dictatorship is really the period when a lot of foreign capital arrived in Brazil. Now, foreign capital arrives in Brazil, but you have to have a whole supply chain to feed that. So, the state stepped in creating these suppliers, okay? So the state stepped in creating the Brazilian steel sector. So if you take CSN, all those Cesita companies in Minas Gerais were state-owned
companies. The state entered the market with Vale do Rio Doce for iron ore to supply the steel industry and other minerals with Petrobras, which had already been created but developed for energy for all these sectors, fertilizers, and so on. So the state enters and goes into debt, creating this whole supply chain to feed the foreign capital companies That arrived here. What was Fernando Henrique Cardoso's idea? Well, let things roll. The more we open the market, the more competitive the Brazilian capitalists who emerge from it will be, because we can't have those capitalists, from that old
coronelismo, tied to the land, traditional structures. So, we have to open the Brazilian market. Now we take what the state developed, what the state invested in, this whole supply chain for industry. We're going to sell everything, we're going to privatize, because this will generate solid national capital , you understand? Competitive, etc. Then this process began with Collor. In fact, the only significant difference between the PT's project and Fernando Cardoso's is that Guido do Mantaga fully embraces it. If you look for Guido do Mantaga's articles praising Fernanda Ricardo, they are numerous. He simply has a more
Kenyan-like view: "Okay, you have to have private capital, the privatizations that F Henrique Cardoso did were good. The laws, like the Fiscal Responsibility Law that corrected all of Brazilian monetary policy, Are what should be done, but the state enters as a consumer agent. Kenyanism is a bit like that." The liberal thinks like both a liberal and a Kenyan. The liberal wants to remove as much of the state as possible. What we're trying to achieve is that people, capitalists, can take as much as possible of what they earn and reinvest it, because that's what you do
with profits and everything. You invest, and production itself will generate consumption, because by creating more companies, you'll hire more workers, and so on. That's the liberal idea, right? Who says: "Look, it's not the other way around, the two will move in opposite directions." No, I don't. You forget that the capitalist may not invest; their surplus capital may remain idle. And normally, in situations of economic stagnation, look, if they simply invest and hire more workers, it won't increase the consumption of their product. Everyone has to do this at the same time, and there's no guarantee that
this will happen. So, Kenneth says, that's why you need an external intervention agent to plug this hole. Every time capitalists aren't investing, the state steps in, inducing Investment and creating consumption. Investing, inducing investment, and creating consumption. Guid do Mant is pretty much along those lines. Uh-huh. So they're going to create the PAC, you understand? Uh, where are the PT's development projects? They're in sectors like construction, you understand? Uh-huh. We're going to increase state consumption through various means. We can increase it through basic income programs, we increase state consumption, and through research incentive grants. Uh, it's
in that sense. But changing the country's structure within the international division of labor, the PT completely sidelined it. Completely sidelined it. Uh, and didn't see that, uh, both thought the market solved the problem. In Fernando Henrique's case, in a slightly more automatic way, in the PT's case, with the state acting as an agent that induces consumption, directing, uh, expanding the consumption base, right, when it stagnates in society as a whole. But both left the market to solve the problem of Brazil's productive structure. So, the events that happened, and this chronological order behind them, helps us
understand where We are. Uh-huh. Because we never had investment in what you've always advocated for, right, in cutting-edge technology, in development industries. That never happened. And through, let's understand, through certain processes, perhaps natural ones, it worked during the military dictatorship that there was this first foreign investment, it flowed because there was capital coming in and somehow it made the gears turn. Yes. During the Consortium with Lula. That worked because there was money left over and it came. But it's always a short-term thing, right? Yes, and where do the leaders we've always had fail in the
same process of not changing, you know, the vision for the future, planning, it's because it's always been the same leadership. Yes, despite being on opposite sides, the same mindset, the same way of acting, we've never had anything different. No, look, all these options are very different, but I think we have to try to situate them. So, for example, nobody knows what they want in Brazil in recent times better than the group led by Bolsonaro. But there, you have very specific interests being defended, Even if the discourse is different. So, to give you an idea, right?
So, Bolsonaro represents a group of Brazilian capitalists who know that Brazil won't develop and don't care. What's important is that things are working for them. Now, with Brazil descending in the international division of labor, for example, it's in their interest to break any kind of existing labor guarantee . It's in their interest to have the worst possible working conditions in the countryside, if possible, work analogous to slavery, because agriculture is geared towards export. So, look, Brazilian farmers, the domestic market, Brazilian agribusiness, for the most part, [...] the Brazilian domestic market, because we don't sell to
Brazil or only a small part of it. Do you understand how there are different positions? For example, FIESP (Federation of Industries of the State of São Paulo) is interested in the Brazilian domestic market. Regarding Itaú, that debate that was coming up yesterday with Murilo, you understand? Itaú has a different position from that of Brazilian agribusiness. First of all, it's not even the main financier of Brazilian agribusiness, which is very much linked To Banco do Brasil, public programs, Banco do Brasil, and some banks that specifically serve agribusiness. Itaú's success depends on a mass of consumers and
a portion of the capital that exploits the Brazilian domestic market. This means that Itaú, which is the country's asset, isn't; it's more concerned with maintaining a certain level of income, which is where its capital circulates. It doesn't create money out of thin air, that doesn't exist, right? Where the value it manages and where it charges for its services and interest circulates. Sectors like agribusiness, for example, don't care about that. And look, 80% of agricultural work in Brazil is informal, according to PNAD data. 80% informality in the agricultural sector in Brazil has always been huge, okay?
But is this number driven by small producers? No, it's not a big problem. It's motivated by the fact that you have irregular harvests, right? So you hire a large amount of labor, for example, for 4 or 5 months, 3 months, and for the rest of the time you don't. So you make piece-rate contracts, which is like this: you'll Work here, the more you harvest, the more you'll earn. Uh-huh. So it's not a fixed salary for work. It has to do with the Brazilian agrarian structure, where historically informality has always reigned. Yes, right? Historically, formality has
always prevailed. You saw this a lot here, for example, there was a tomato harvest season here, right? At that time, families would go there and get a lot of money because they were harvesting and receiving payment for productivity, but none of them had a signed work contract as a rural producer, right? None of them had a work contract, it was all temporary work, right? In the city where I come from, Turmalina, it's a city, today it's changed a bit, okay? Turmalina has even improved. I was going to say that because I remember exactly, I even
remember the trucks picking people up—tell me your name now—the truck would pass by, you'd sit on the floor of the truck, and off they'd take a whole bunch of people from the city. If it was like that, but today, in reality, here in Araguari, that hasn't existed for a long time. No, that changes, because the productivity of the fields has also changed, right? Today you use agricultural machinery. Today You go there, use a machine that harvests all the coffee. For me, it wasn't like that, I remember the coffee, but the tomato harvest is still done
manually to this day. It's manual. The tomato harvest, coffee too, often, the terrain is uneven, right? All those things. For example, Turmalina, I remember, it's a huge part of the city, they worked there during the sugarcane harvest, during the sugarcane harvest, they went to São Paulo. And the city would lose 2,000 inhabitants. The city of 10,000 to 12,000 would lose 2,000 inhabitants at that time. Wow, what would happen? The city would be deserted, people would be gone for three or four months, and then everyone would come back with their motorcycles, their savings, and everything. But
that money was something you'd have to use for the whole year, the whole year until you came back again. It was that cycle. And another thing, it's all right for these people to stay in the informal sector, right? In their minds, they think, "I'll do a job here, I'll even get paid more during the day," and they agree with the informality, right? This person never goes to the boss and says, "Hey, I want you to register my work permit." Because they don't have any bargaining chips To negotiate with the boss, right? It's like an illusion
we have in the city we live in, that people have a choice. Formally, we have the choice to do what we want, but obviously the choices we make are determined by the conditions we find ourselves in. If I only have one job opportunity and there are no others, and I have to pay rent, I have no one to support me, etc., I have no choice, I'll have to work at that job. Whatever the person wants to pay, I'll pay, I'll accept it, you understand? So that's it, people who are in these work arrangements, these are
the options they have. These are the options they have, etc. So I just wanted to... To point this out is to show that there are sectors within Brazilian capital with distinct interests; it's not all the same. They unite when you have mass mobilizations against the working class as a whole; they're together, but they have distinct interests there. So, for example, the Bolsonaro government knew very well what doesn't have a development project. I Remember the debates I participate in, the things people repeat, like: "Oh, Brazil doesn't need engineers," or someone else: "What Brazil needs is people
to unclog the toilet in my house." Superman said that in the debate with me and everything. Or that guy, I think it was engineer Leo, right? He said: "Oh, Brazil will develop by producing cachaça, right?" In other words, that's people's vision of development. Brazil doesn't have to develop. That's what they 're saying. As long as mine is guaranteed. Like, cachaça production, my friend, excuse me. Like, Salinas is a city next to where I live. Tourmaline near Salinas. Salinas is a city of 20,000-25,000 inhabitants. Salinas is one of the largest producers of cachaça in Brazil. Salinas
is a poor city, having one of the main centers of cachaça production in Brazil. Why? Because the production of cachaça within the international division of labor means nothing. Do you understand? The automotive sector represents 10% of the world's wealth. Do you understand? The aerospace sector represents 5%. I'm just throwing out the numbers here, okay, folks? It's just to give you a sense of scale. That 's what it means. The iPhone sector, etc., represents another 9, 10, 12%. Do you understand? The point is that if you're not involved in these large niches of value production, your
role in the division of labor will be insignificant. What happened to Brazil during the entire PT government? The industrial sector that grew the most was the food industry. Brazilian industry, in absolute terms, has maintained its weight in terms of the number of people employed in the manufacturing industry. But where are the people increasingly employed in the manufacturing industry? In the food industry. The food industry has the lowest added value, the least complex work. And what does lower added value and less complex work mean? Lower wages. So you go to the base of the economy, which
is where the base of all Brazilian workers is. The largest industrial sector in Brazil is food, but the lowest wages of all the food industries. Food, you understand? And look, this working class with these lower wages, Because the industry has simplified, because it is less complex and everything, is the one that will buy the product that is made with capital. This is the entire Brazilian economy. Low purchasing power, very low, and everything else. Oh Gustavo, and does all this reflect in the problems we are experiencing today in Brazil, in our society? All of this is
the cause of a very poor quality of education, it's the cause of public safety problems, which is something I wanted to talk to you about today as well. For example, many people are going online today saying that the Brazilian left doesn't know how to talk about public safety. The Brazilian left doesn't have solutions for public safety, right? Do you think what we're saying reflects that? And I'd like you to elaborate on these ideas, how can we solve these problems today? Oh, sure. Yes, certainly. Okay, I keep harping on this point because I'll get to public
safety later, okay? Great. Yes, I won't stop talking about it. Uh, so people don't lose sight of the following: look, without increasing wealth production, there is no Wealth distribution. Then there's the second problem, which is how it's distributed, unequal appropriation, but in Brazil we can stop at this first one because Brazil's wealth production is stagnant in the long term, or even declining, because there's no national development project and there's no interest, okay, from the dominant sectors of Brazil in doing so because it's something expensive, costly, that takes time. And I want quick profits, and here
there are places to make quick profits. Here, it's better to invest in agriculture, it's better to invest in mining, it's better to invest in oil or in these low value-added industrial sectors, right, the food industry, in these entrenched sectors that will be present throughout the Brazilian domestic market, which has been shaped, right, that will exploit private education, private health, and so on. So, these sectors benefit, they make a lot of money, and if it's not possible to expand, I invest abroad or I invest in Brazilian public debt bonds and we keep going. Interest, that's how
we live off of that. That's it. Bolsonaro represents a group that is exactly like that. That's exactly what Brazil is like. And [...] The important thing is that mine Is guaranteed. And here I have to tighten the conditions to ensure that these conditions for the reproduction of capital within a declining Brazil continue. So, as Brazil goes downhill, I have to reduce working conditions, make work more flexible, allow intermittent work, part-time work, end the CLT (Consolidation of Labor Laws) which is becoming a privilege in Brazil, right? And so on. So, it expresses exactly that. I think
the PT (Workers' Party) always had a power project, without knowing exactly what it was going to do and without being willing to engage in any major confrontation. So, you can say, "There are people in the PT who want structural change in Brazil," I don't doubt that, but it's no use just wanting it. You have to be willing to engage in the level of confrontation that allows you to do so. The first condition for the PT to come to power was to sign a letter to the Brazilian people, signed by Lula, obviously, guaranteeing that it wouldn't
change anything to keep the entire Brazilian capitalist sector calm. "Here we will prioritize fiscal adjustment above all else. Here we will Fulfill all our commitments, both to foreign organizations and to capital at the international level." This letter was the PT's great safe conduct to say: "Look, we're going to come to power and we want to reconcile everyone's interests." Now, when you reconcile everyone's interests, whose interests are you protecting? Do you understand? So, what does it try to do? Small adjustments. But do you believe that our neighbor here, who holds 40% of the world's capital, wants
our country to develop? Does he allow it? Or is it a game where the PT (Workers' Party) has to win a battle every day? Oh, for sure the PT would have to confront, for example, the United States to do that. One of the things we're going to show in Laes's book, for example, people think: "Oh, Brazil is becoming more and more dependent on China," right? No. The capital that operates here is mostly American, okay? Because people confuse the trade balance, which isn't the capital that operates here, it's who you sell to and who you buy
from. Uh-huh. It's in that sense. OK. The Brazilian trade balance, uh, is mostly Purchases and sales with China. I'll even get the data here for you, okay? Uh, the United States, it has data in Brazil, the data I have here from 2022, it's a little more up-to-date, okay? Well, the United States represents 28% of foreign capital installed here in Brazil. The second place is Spain, 6%. Wow. Wow. Okay. 28% is the United States, because that's the whole world, okay? So 28% is the United States. Spain, second place, 6%, the United Kingdom, 5%, France 5.5%, and
China 4.5%. Okay? So, the capital installed here has such a large impact, uh, that when we look, for example, at the... not only is there a much greater transfer of income from Brazil to other countries than from other countries to Brazil, okay? Uh, but worse, when we look at the foreign capital installed in Brazil and the Brazilian capital installed abroad, man, there's nothing there, no, well, there is. You know where it is? Uh, Brazil has gigantic investments in the Bahamas. [ __ ] that's what it's all about. In the Virgin Islands. No, it's all here.
We brought all the data, okay? Bahamas, the islands, tax havens. It's not necessarily corruption, okay? It could be, but not necessarily, because there you have tax exemptions. These places are tax havens because they are very small places that need a minuscule amount of tax revenue. So, for them to leave all these things aside, the amount of capital you're going to attract, which goes to these places that don't charge any taxes, it already compensates for places like those islands in the Caribbean Sea, you understand? So, these are Brazilian companies that set up headquarters there in the
Bahamas, on the islands, in other words, it's not foreign investment, [ __ ] none. And when you look at the largest fraction of Brazilian foreign capital abroad, it's from the Brazilian government. When you disregard these virgin islands, the Bahamas and so on, what is it? It's the Brazilian government holding US debt bonds, Brazil lending money to the United States at low interest rates, right? So yes, obviously the PT government, if it wanted to have a strategic development project, would have to break with the United States, would have to confront the United States, would have to
have a confrontation with the United States. Would it have been willing to do that at some point? Never. And this foreign capital installed in Brazil from the United States, of that 28%, most of it is in big tech companies, data centers. No, man, that's the problem. Big tech is almost nothing, because the big tech companies are in the United States, we just consume. What we have here in Brazil is almost nothing. For example, Google doesn't develop Google Maps in Brazil. Think about the Google apps you use. None of them are developed in Brazil. They're developed
there, run in data centers there. It's all there. Here at Google, you basically have an administrative headquarters, right? Because how do we consume this product? So legally, for example, we're here on YouTube, right? Uh, I saw Felipe Durante's complaint there, from Professor Roque, right? Who sued him there, or rather, who issued strikes on his videos, on everything. I offer my absolute and total solidarity to Felipe Durante regarding this. Uh, so you're going to receive a strike, you 're going to have to appeal, you need to have an administrative headquarters at Google here to deal with
these things, you understand? That's right. Well, if you look at the number of Google employees in Brazil, it's very small because the bulk of them are all in the United States, right? So, we're talking about American capital here in two ways. Uh, from companies of the previous technological revolution. So, we're talking about car companies, like General Motors, uh, you're talking about appliance companies, like some American ones. You're sometimes talking about a small part of Apple that just finishes the assembly process of one thing or another, or has a distribution center here in Brazil. You're talking
about American capital buying Brazilian companies in the wholesale market and other sectors, like Microsoft, which is in the Manaus Free Trade Zone. Exactly. Things like that . It's just that the United States has a direct link to the presence of American capital, a very large historical link, for a long time, this thing takes root in various small sectors, sometimes even buying existing companies. And this capital, of course, is in the interest of the United States, not in the interest of Brazil. Brazil can't negotiate with this capital In a way that benefits our country. The capital
belongs to them. They do whatever they want, right? They do whatever they want. You have to beg to get investment, right? If they want to take it away from here, take it somewhere else, they can take it away. Like Ford did. Ford said: "Ah, you know what? Uh, I'm in fourth or fifth place in the Brazilian automotive market. Fiat dominates first, then Volkswagen and GM. I'm far behind. Uh, I make less profit there, it's smaller vehicles. He said, you know what? I'll take my unit in Argentina and sell, I'll market my cars from the Argentine
production unit in Brazil, I'll close it down. So, but that's not just a choice of the company itself, that's value. Of course, if there's an exemption, if there's a benefit, they'll stay here. They're not here because they 're going to make a trade agreement with Brazil, they don't need that. Uh, no, they're here because in some way there's a benefit. They went to China because the labor there was cheap, they produced." That's great. Yes. Here, labor is cheap, but there's a legal hurdle that everyone talks about, A problem we have here, a legal obstacle with
labor laws, which ends up causing friction between production and the producer. So they're here, not because, oh, I'm going to leave Brazil, but because it's somehow not profitable for them here. Of course, if they left, it's because it's not profitable. That's obvious. Capital makes moves thinking about its immediate profit. And that's what I'm saying. If Brazil wants a strategic development project, you'll have to make decisions, you'll have to take measures that don't follow the logic of immediate profit. Uh-huh. So, for example, the Chinese automotive companies that developed, they spent decades incurring losses. Uh-huh. Decades until
they were able to compete, obviously. And that's thinking in capitalist terms, okay? So I'm showing that if the PT (Workers' Party) wants to break with this logic, if we want to develop in key sectors, this won't be done first by private capital, which obviously won't be willing to be first because they don't even have the capital for it. Capital, right? I've seen people say, capitalists, Capital, Brazilian capitalists are very large, etc. Compared to what capital is on a global level, they are very large for us. Mere mortal workers, of course, right? But because it's capital,
what about that guy from Master who did all that bizarre stuff and tried to flee the country, who just got arrested? Capitalism on a global level, that guy is a nobody, nobody of a nobody, compared to Brazilian capitalism, he's a guy who has power. Uh-huh. Right? When we talk about the state, for example, I find it funny when people say: "Wow, Brazil invested 50 million." Then people say: "Damn, 50, that's nothing, 2 billion, man. It's 2 billion. It's nothing, it's nothing. It's a social intelligence bill, 23 billion over 4 or 5 years. That's nothing for
artificial intelligence and it 's nothing for Brazilian public finances, because it's 23 billion over 5 years, right? The net revenue of the Brazilian state should be around 1 trillion, more or less. So do your calculations. I'll say I think it's 3 trillion. No, but that's the total revenue. I say net, because a good part of that revenue is from debt, from debt rollover. That's it. That's true. That's the debt rollover process. Uh, the net revenue is what will actually be used within the budget. But Brazil has the capacity to spend 3 trillion there. It spends
3 trillion, right? It's that it takes advantage of a... But you understand how much money passes through, man. Oh, it doesn't pass through ." Yes. It's a lot. When the guy says 2 billion, 2 billion loses 3 trillion that circulated there. But Brazil has the capacity to work in deficit, like, to say, "Hey, I'm going to generate an internal deficit of 50, 500 billion overnight," he can say how much he's going to work with a deficit? That's why messing with that, Rodrigo, meant, for example, you 'd have to nationalize the main Brazilian productive structures, otherwise
you can't do anything to first get resources to sell there, define priorities, because that's it, the market is what Robertinho just said, the market is wherever you point your nose. Why would I think, for example, in terms of food, about the price of Brazilian products, the price that the Brazilian consumer will pay, if I sell coffee, meat linked to the dollar, Much more expensive. Ah, I don't care if Brazilians pay R$ 50 for a bag of low-quality coffee , right? I want mine there for... $50 and that's it. Sure. Sure. So, in order to intervene
in this, you have to at least interfere with the central productive structures of Brazil. You have to have them, you have to own them. Unlike what the PT government and Fernandes Ricardo did. I think there's a bigger difficulty, Machado. Uh, it's logical that you say it's a huge difficulty, right? You'll have to break the links of the owners of the production chain, in theory, right? That's it. Exactly. But what about the people who are ready to face this whole process? Because then you'll need a workforce that will also have to work hard, will have to
work hard for a Time, because when you enter this process you can't say: "Wow, industrial labor pays better, it'll pay well." Initially, that's not the case. It's work until you really stabilize these pillars, until you build this house, until you lay the foundation; it's just hard work, paying very little. No, no, no, I don't think so. You see the surpluses We see when we show them at Petrobras; it's because the logic of the market dictates what matters, what matters is how much the other party pays. I'll give you an example of what has already happened
in negotiation meetings involving Vale do Rio Doce, studies that we at Laes do, you know those absurd productivity calculations that we show in the yearbook, the guy pays the salary for half an hour, 40 minutes, 50 minutes. I love the responses from the Vale people to our studies. They never questioned a number, and they are as direct as possible. They say , "It's happened several times, okay? Several times, almost every year." You say, "No, the study is fine, everything's alright, that's it, I understand your perspective, what you 're trying to promote and all that, but
for us what matters is this: the other mining companies are paying less than we are, so we want to pay less, you understand?" Ah, productivity here has increased. The price of ore has risen, when applicable. We're making a profit that covers all the salary payments. It's just that the company next door In the mining sector is paying less than we are. And that's what the market dictates, the competition for workers is competition with other mining companies. How much does Vale pay and how much do they pay? We're paying higher, we want to pay less. They're
paying... One side pays 15,000, this one is paying 1502. Yeah, we pay 5,000, the other pays three, we pay four, the other pays 2,500. So no, we also want to pay 2500. Can you afford to pay 8000? We can, but we can pay half, you understand? So I don't think so. You could very well reduce working hours, for example, the problem with technology today is just how are you going to do that? You're going to negotiate this with large capital, even with medium capital. The problem with technology makes the reduction of working hours an imperative.
An imperative, people. And the impacts... I had a discussion with a scoundrel about this. The impacts are going to be shocking. Can you imagine the productivity, the increase in productivity with artificial intelligence that is now reaching medium and high-skilled jobs. Previous technological advancements Impacted what more directly? The more directly manual jobs, as people call them. Yes. Now, official productivity intelligence doesn't do anything, okay? People do it. But the difference is that an engineer in civil construction, using artificial intelligence, specialized software trained for civil construction, a project that used to take three months to do, he
now does in three days. Uh-huh. He's going to oversee what artificial intelligence has done. I'm giving you fictional numbers here, okay folks? But it's just to illustrate the size of the impact. If in three months it starts doing what it does in three days, it means that on average the market will need 30 times fewer engineers, because a smaller number 30 times smaller can handle the work than before. Yes. And you go to things like design, computer programming, right? Then I see these people doing these highly helpful things, right? There's a guy who says, I
even like him, who's been on Flow a few times, whose name I forgot, he's a guy of Japanese origin, he says: "Nobody will replace my hand, My work, right? Artificial intelligence isn't capable of doing what I do." It's true. It's not capable of doing what you do, which is what a highly qualified person does, a computer scientist who creates new things, graduated from a top university. But 90% of programmers are fast food, they use standardized programming techniques, you understand? That's not going to be replaced by artificial intelligence. But a skilled worker will use artificial intelligence
and do what they did before. I needed 10 programmers. Uh-huh. 10, 15 programmers. It's sweeping that sector clean, not to mention the design and everything else. Man, how can you and a country like Brazil be doubly penalized? Because Sacan spoke to me, and rightly so. Oh, no, but it will create new branches of production, new jobs that didn't exist before. Something new. So there will be people who will train artificial intelligence, there are people who will produce artificial intelligence. Oh, great. The people who will produce artificial intelligence, none of them are in Brazil, because Brazil
doesn't produce artificial intelligence. The Brazilian artificial intelligence project Is about adapting the tools that already exist so they can be applied here. In other words, we will suffer the effects and the job creation and nothing. Artificial intelligence training. There is this type of job that can become widespread in Brazil, yes, which is terrible. Uh, they use labor in India, in Africa, in droves, and it's the cheapest. The cheapest. Intense. The guy has... And what's worse, the person exposed is worse than that guy everyone's always saying "good morning," "hello," "good morning," "hello," " good morning." Much
worse. Because these training programs are designed to prevent, for example, someone from using artificial intelligence to go after children in pedophilic situations. So, how does the person train? Well, the algorithm is trained. This person has to try to do it, they have to expose the algorithm to images of it, to situations involving it, in order to adjust its variables so that it doesn't act in that direction. So, the person is exposed to this all day long. The person's college goes crazy, man. It goes crazy, you understand? Paying for their energy, this training stuff. This is
the kind of thing that, Like what happened with Uber, could start to become widespread in Brazil in the future. Training algorithms of all kinds is essential; once the algorithm is trained, including in its most skilled areas, it's then ready to be used in the field, eliminating the need for the same group of professionals previously required. At Elian, do you conduct studies on whether AI, for example, will decrease employment capacity or the creation of new businesses? We have done, and we do, we conducted a broad study on Brazilian public servants at Ilazi, measuring the size of
the impact on public service in Brazil. 70% will be partially impacted. We looked at the occupations, one by one, within the Brazilian public service, the specific activities each person performs, and analyzed the functions that will be partially and significantly affected. Only 15% of the public service will be slightly affected. The remaining 85% will be either partially or significantly affected. This slightly affected portion, this isn't the generational aspect, is it? The management there, Because this AI is going to be heavily impacted, very affected. It's part of cleaning, the least affected part is cleaning, part of some
security parts. These are the more directly manual parts. These are the ones that Impact mentioned, the middle and high levels. This will be directly impacted, impacted. Yes. And a new process is coming to impact the more directly manual part, okay? Chinese robotics, well, robotics in China is at a much more advanced level than anywhere else. One of the companies will, I still want to see, okay? I don't make future projections based only on what already exists. I don't make future projections based on what I think will exist. You must have seen the report on the
Chinese robots, like the army, they made an animation of the Chinese robot army. Did you see that? I saw it. It's that they are already robots that reproduce human movements, capable of repetitive work that works 24 hours a day. You understand? Yes, there's a factory in China that they call the "dark factory," something like that. It doesn't need lights inside because it's already 100% automated. No need to turn on the light. It just does a good job. Yes, Exactly. Uh, it's the same in the market, right? Domestic cleaning, right? Housework. Uh, robots do a good
part of the housework in China. Yes, the cleaning part. We already have robots for cleaning, they're already in Brazil and everything, but in China they're even more sophisticated, right? There, robotics is everywhere, so, uh, I think all of this is good, okay, folks? I think it's great because of these developments. I agree, but the problem is that it's used against us. So, to change that, just to drastically reduce the working day in Brazil, you have a confrontation with all of Brazilian high capital. Just to understand what I'm talking about. When I defend the revolutionary path,
it's not because I'm attached to more radical things. Do you think you're going to... No, man, if it were possible to solve the problem in a more peaceful way, I would prefer that. If there were a way to solve the problem in a consistent, continuous way, of course I would prefer that, because I don't want it to be the most conflictive way, which will require struggle, direct confrontation with The possibility of people being injured, killed, war, because I don't want that. I don't see another way out. But also through a revolutionary approach, okay? If it's
very organized, if there are many people involved, the process happens with much less conflict than you imagine. Because the strength of big capital lies in the following: it's when people are quiet, because capital is those people who have the power to set those people in motion for it. If most people are organized and don't agree to participate, the money in their account is worthless. Their power over those people means nothing anymore. I understand that you have a desire to accelerate the process, but isn't the operation of capital inevitable, man? Uh, no, I don't want to
accelerate the process of this scenario you're talking about, right? I believe that at some point we'll have to get together and say: "Look, this isn't enough to feed humanity anymore and it's going to be overcome." I think we're already behind schedule, in my opinion, okay? It's not about accelerating the process, it's about wanting us to go in a different direction than where this process is leading us, You understand? And I think the longer we delay doing this, the worse it will get. It won't get better, it will get worse. For example, one of the characteristics
that these technological advancements are bringing is a fragmentation of workers on a gigantic scale, through remote work, through the fragmentation of various modalities and types of work, the concentration of workers in more specific locations around the world, as happens with the technology industries today, which are all concentrated in the host countries. The previous revolution was all concentrated in East Asia. Back in the 50s and 60s, it was necessary for it to be spread throughout the world. That's no longer necessary. So I don't think it's about accelerating the process. I think it's about making the process
go in that direction. And to make it go in that direction, there has to be confrontation. There has to be confrontation with capital at the national level. There has to be confrontation with capital at the international level in every sense. This is so you can adjust the work schedule, so you can allow the Brazilian population, People, to maintain the level of education in Brazil. Argentina completely dismantles the argument that the problem is the educational level. Argentina has a basic education that is second only to the leading countries in the world, which is far superior to
Brazil's. In Argentina, a teacher who teaches what here would be first to fifth grade earns more than a teacher at the UBA, the University of Buenos Aires, which is the Public University of Buenos Aires. The primary school teacher there earns more than the university professor. Uh-huh. And basic education in Argentina, in general, is very good. If you go to the poorest places in Argentina, you'll find people who have a good command of reading, who read, and even have reading habits. And Argentina is Brazil at an accelerated pace. Argentina isn't better than Brazil, no. It's worse,
because it's no use having qualified people if there aren't places for those qualified people to work. Uh-huh. When I focus on this issue of production, of what we are doing, strategic sectors... It's not by chance. Why did the Bolsonaro government feel so comfortable attacking research at Public universities? It stems from a concrete basis. The vast majority of this research isn't used for anything because there's no technological production in Brazil. So what does big Brazilian capital want? Oh, so let's cut public spending on research because we don't use it anyway. They cut all the research projects,
give out CAPS (a Brazilian academic grant program), etc. Then you make that speech about, "Oh, they're just writing Marxist theses and all that." If you look at the overall research, the bulk of it is all the exact and biological sciences. Uh-huh. Humanities are much smaller. Uh-huh. And Marxism within the humanities is insignificant. Yes. It's an attack on the Brazilian public university as a whole, right? So why would they stay there? I remember when I was in university, right? There were people from the physics department at FMG (Faculty of Magna Carta), a very competent department, one
of the best in Brazil at the time, developing materials physics, new materials that allowed conductivity. If you take a wire down the street, 90-something percent of the energy we produce is dissipated in distribution; it's not used. So, they were developing materials That allowed for 100 times greater energy utilization, but the material was still too expensive to produce, it wasn't viable to use it. The question is, why should we keep doing this? We're not at the forefront of any of these processes. They're spending this money that isn't being used for anything. So what do you do?
Do you invest in Brazil's development process? Don't cut public spending on research, free up space in the budget. This budget space can help solve Brazil's fiscal deficit. Why isn't Lula doing anything? Because he doesn't want to break with anyone. He wants to solve the problem of Brazil's fiscal deficit. So, is it possible for him to revolutionize knowledge production in Brazil? No, because he has to cut spending. You see? He doesn't want to confront the major companies. So, is it possible for him to drastically increase Brazil's revenue? Not at all. The things he did, a battle
there that I think is even better than what was in place before, is to interfere with the negligible fraction of big capital, it doesn't even reach interest rates, profits, and dividends. It's in OF operations, banking transactions like that, to prevent money from leaving the country. Yes, it's to try to contain that, because really, okay, I don't think it was bad, but it's a tiny thing and even then done out of necessity, because Paraíba has a fiscal deficit, it's not linked to any strategic project. Uh-huh. And so on. This could go on for hours. You want
to talk about public safety? I was going to. That's kind. You said I wouldn't stop talking about it. And it's because Cabeleiro has already talked about this here at other times, that you managed to draw a kind of synchronicity between the states that have more development, more industries, and violence. Machado did an analysis of what happens in Rio de Janeiro, which I haven't seen anyone else do. Uh-huh. Okay, everyone's going to explain what's happening in Rio de Janeiro, in a public safety analysis. Ah, we need an immediate confrontation, right? The left doesn't know how to
talk about public safety in the short term. What do we have to do to solve this problem? Because people really can't take it anymore, right? In Brazil, nobody can stand having their Cell phones stolen anymore, right? In the favelas. The population can't stand being victims of drug traffickers anymore. And everyone has a solution for these things. But Machado, I saw him doing an analysis that I haven't seen anyone else on the internet do, and I'd like to talk about that. Yes. Today I'll even take the opportunity to respond to some comments that were made about
these videos. I think it's normal, it's part of the debate process, right? Uh, people drew conclusions that I didn't draw from that material, but I'll start from that point for those who haven't seen the video, right? I draw attention to the following: Rio de Janeiro is the state and capital of greatest decline in Brazil in the last century for several reasons. First, Rio de Janeiro was already a Rio de Janeiro was a gigantic city because it was the capital of Brazil. At the beginning of the 20th century, Rio de Janeiro had over 1 million inhabitants.
São Paulo had 100,000, okay? It had well over 1 million. São Paulo had 100,000 inhabitants, to give you an idea. And it's a city that lost its status as the capital of Brazil, which passed to Brasília. It's a city that largely depended on that. If the capital of the country causes resources to migrate to that place, just look at Brasília. Brasília has a per capita income comparable to France, okay? Of course, very high salaries for a very large sector that has to move there because of all that infrastructure and everything else. In other words, there's
a lot of wealth transfer from the entire country to the capital, because it's the capital, for obvious reasons. Rio de Janeiro ceased to be the capital and it's an entire metropolitan area of Rio de Janeiro. It's a region undergoing a process of absolute deindustrialization. In Brazil, it's relative. What does relative mean ? It doesn't mean that Brazilian industry is absolutely collapsing, but compared to the development of production at a global level, Brazil's role is diminishing. So, Brazil is falling relative to the world, okay? Well, Rio isn't; it's falling absolutely. Rio today is completely dependent on
Petrobras, which is the largest company in Brazil, headquartered there, and has its main production center in Maricá, right next to Rio de Janeiro. Without Petrobras royalties, The state of Rio de Janeiro would go bankrupt. Now, having this absolute deindustrialization means a small value chain, mass unemployment, mass informality, and social chaos. And it's evident that a country, like a city, that has this accelerated decline in an urban agglomeration of 20 million people, which is the Rio de Janeiro area, will be much more open and exposed to crime in various ways. This is obvious to me. "Ah,
but then, Gustavo, is crime reduced to that?" Obviously not. There were people who analyzed the data, and I showed, among other things, that Fortaleza is one of the cities in the Northeast that has developed the most in recent times. That doesn't mean the situation in Fortaleza is good, okay? It means that, comparing Fortaleza, for example, with Recife, or with Salvador, for example, Fortaleza is a city that, economically, in terms of employment, has developed more than Salvador. "Ah, but why is the world ending in Fortaleza?" There's a whole specific circumstance involving Fortaleza. Because Fortaleza and Natal
are drug trafficking routes to Europe. Europe, right, is Relatively close, okay? We forget. I think Europe is much closer to Fortaleza and Natal than Rio de Janeiro, much closer, right? So, Brazilian drug trafficking today, fundamentally, feeds Europe. The United States is controlled by Mexico. Cocaine production is done in three places in the world, folks. Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia, mostly, but especially Colombia and Peru. So, Brazilian trafficking has now taken control of this route that takes the drug from Brazil. First Brazil, one of the main consumer centers, and then via Natal and Fortaleza to Europe. Uh-huh.
Well, some places have entered with full force, PCC, Comando Vermelho, destroying the local factions, yes, to take control. So, Fortaleza has a specific scenario there, okay? It has a specific scenario that creates this situation. What I want to highlight in my video is, first, obviously there's a social issue involved. Evidently, in a place where life is very [__], the propensity to engage in crime is much greater. There's a second Factor that can't be ignored, okay? Which is the criminalization of drugs themselves, which can't be ignored, which generates an absurdly high value for these products. And
that generates one, you would destroy drug trafficking in a matter of seconds if the drug fossilized, if you increase drug trafficking, drug consumption by people, man, I don't know where they got that from. People would be here and say: "Hey, I'm not a cocaine user, but now that it's legal, "I'm going to use it there." I don't know anyone who would reason like that, you understand? It's because I think that at this point, it's not what's going to come in. Uh-huh. It's what already exists, for example, the guy who smokes, when he doesn't have a
cigarette in his hand, he's smoke-free. If you give him the opportunity, he can find it whenever he wants. Man, if I want to use it in Belo Horizonte, I'll go there today and I guarantee you I'll get it tonight, it'll be at my house. Here too, man. Here it was Guar too. Yes. So that's not the difficulty. Of course, you would do the opposite of what you do with betting, in my opinion, which is a drug, You would do the opposite of what you do with betting, you would tax it, obviously, you could direct that
resource, for example, to treatment, to drug control policies and things in that scenario. It would break all this issue of legal trafficking that exists in Brazil. It has nothing to do with the This isn't about advocating for consumption, okay? It has nothing to do with advocating for consumption, especially since I'm not an advocate in any sense. Someone might say, "Ah, but a person has the individual freedom to exactly what they want?" Okay, a person has the individual freedom to bang their head against the wall, right? That's why I'm going to encourage people to do that,
right? So that's a second point, okay? I'm against punishment, of course not. Okay, I'm not. You don't have, you don't, I know, people are dealing with the issue of public safety, which is something that plagues people's lives all the time. You can't wait for society's problems to be solved before addressing the issue, even knowing that you have a social explanation for it, obviously there has to be punishment, yes. Obviously there has to be. Immediate confrontation is necessary. It's necessary. Now, That doesn't make me fall into things, okay? I'm not going to think, for example, that
you're going to have a policy of mass extermination. To solve the problem. Do you know what mass extermination policy is? It's the imprisonment and murder of thousands of innocent people. You have an investigation process, not out of excessive whim, but because the possibility of making a mistake in identifying who is committing a crime always exists and is always high. The possibility of falling into caricatures, in a racist country like Brazil, "oh, he's black in the favela, so he's potentially a criminal." There are studies, for example, in El Salvador, which is a very small place, right?
They carried out a massive repression process there. There's a new prison there, in fact, if I'm not mistaken , Eduardo Bolsonaro visited there these last few days, for 40,000 people, and estimates suggest that 22,000 of them are innocent. Estimates, if you want to understand the dynamics of this, okay? I advise you to document this data; they are estimates because the arrests are made without investigation, you understand? You can research it; there's an international group that did research and Estimated how many are probably innocent people there. Innocent people. Because what happens? You're falling for it, you're
falling for your own kind of science that you say you don't believe in. Without data, no, without data, no, you don't say no, Machado. It's because you can't go there and investigate one by one, which is exactly what the state didn't do. You have consolidated methods that allow you to understand the following: what were the criteria for imprisonment that they used there? Do you understand? Uh, considering this criterion, you already have prior data regarding investigations that were done before, how many turned out to be true, when they turned out to be false, when this same
type of criterion was used to execute an arrest or identify a suspect. So, you have methods to be able to do this, to be able to make this type of estimate. When you do mass imprisonment, without investigating each case, you're committing a lot of imprisonment of innocent people. There's a documentary on Netflix or Prime, I don't remember, that's exactly about these cases of people who are imprisoned, convicted in the United States, and are innocent. Do you think this couldn't be Similar here in Brazil too? No, not like that. It's Salvador, because many people say that
we do mass incarceration, on January 1st, so there are mass incarcerations here, Many of them are based on prejudice and everything else, and many are based on arrests and being caught in the act. It's different from Salvador, where they said, "Look, here's the list of suspects, arrest everyone." Uh-huh. Do you understand how the investigation can be carried out? "Here's the list of suspects. Arrest everyone, put everyone in jail." Just because someone is a suspect, there wasn't an investigation proving that the person was actually involved in the crime. Do you understand? They say that Buquelli arrested
many gang members, right? Certainly, among that group, there were many. These gang members have identifying marks. How do you know who's from the gang and who isn't? Do you understand? For example, they did that operation there, which in my opinion was pure publicity for Rio de Janeiro. That operation in Rio de Janeiro. Did Comando Vermelho leave the favela? No, they were still in control of the favela the Next day. The next day. So, if you want to carry out an operation there, and Salvador, what would they achieve? They would arrive at the German prison, besides
occupying 2,000, 3,000,000 people. Who exactly are the people involved in the crime? Everyone we identify as a suspect, where most certainly aren't suspects. That's it. I don't know. I still have to investigate. When I investigate, a good part of the cases I see aren't. Uh-huh. And then come the caricatures, the prejudices, and everything. Mass incarceration, throw everyone in jail. There, public money for prison. Brazil already has almost 1 million incarcerated people. We're going to have to create a prison for 5 million. We'll have to raise taxes, right? How are we going to pay for these
people? 5 million people, where to imprison 5 million people, if you want to have a proper investigation one by one, a decent investigation and everything, then you'll need another 5, 10 million investigators. Put that in the equation. Look, there's a sector in Brazil that's really prejudiced. There's a sector in Brazil that isn't proposing to do that, Because that would mean they'd earn much less, because they'd have to increase taxes. The Brazilian tax burden would have to go from 33% to 40%. Just to cover the costs of investigations, etc. You'd have to multiply the number of
police officers by five, you'd have to multiply the number of arrests by five, you'd have to increase the number of public servants absurdly, because these police officers are investigators, public servants will have to be well paid, increasing the number of police officers and so on won't impact the final value. Now, if you say you're going to increase the judiciary, which is already the most expensive in the world, right? In Brazil it's already the most expensive. To do these investigations. Maybe artificial intelligence could be used in that process. Yeah, that's a different story. A different story.
Okay, look, I know that a sector of Brazil really wants this, and I mean, we have to expose this. Seriously, I don't want this to increase. I just want them to take those people from the favela. That's what people really think. And put them all in jail, You understand? Take everyone in age range X who's suspected. Man, no, the people don't think like that. But there's a group in Brazil that does, okay? Because you say, there's a group in Brazil that thinks, I've seen people saying, uh, next to me, uh, because they were robbed, because
their car was stolen, they'll say, oh, they should grab a machine gun and start shooting everyone in those favelas , you understand? I have a minority group in Brazil that thinks like that, okay? But that's the same as the group that turns around and says, oh, all the police are thugs. The minority of police officers are thugs, man. Oh, yes. Do you understand? It's a generalized view of a minority, and then you include everyone in the same package. That's, I'm saying, it's wrong. It's wrong, but it's a view. But the central point here, regardless of
how many people are involved, that I'm drawing attention to, is that behind this punitive argument, you fall into this conclusion. You have to go around carrying out mass incarceration based on where the person lives, the color of their skin, their location. That's what she's saying, because if it's not that, the person has to be aware that she's advocating for Brazil to have 4 million more police officers, for Brazil to have prisons for 4 million more people. Do you understand? Uh, that you'll have to increase the number of investigators several times over, you'll have to expand
the judiciary to be able to handle all of that. If you want that, you 'll have to drastically increase the tax burden. Uh, so the person will understand that, she'll say: "No, that's not what I'm talking about." Do you understand? Uh-huh. So what are you going to do? You have to have punishment. Of course you have to have punishment. You have to try to have a minimum of public safety, and that's not just in elite neighborhoods, right? Public safety is very different, especially in large cities. Of course you have to have it. Now, uh, the
central point is to act to solve the country's social problems, which foster the creation of crime. And it really does foster it, folks. So, you think it's easy? You were born into a social condition where you didn't study, you only had access to a fifth- rate public school. I only studied in public schools, a public school that I attended in a Middle-class school in the municipality where I lived, much better. I had a mother who was a teacher. My father is also a man who had a great deal of culture, although he only went to
university later. So, I grew up being stimulated at home. I learned from my mother to read literature, you understand? I learned from my father to be a person who loves maps, geographical information, and following in my father's footsteps. My father collected those April Omanacles, which I spent my childhood looking at, those April Omanacles with information about countries, with world maps, those road guides. It's very easy for me to have been stimulated at home by my parents my whole life, my mother a state school teacher and all, and then want to point at everyone because they
didn't study like me, right? The person who was born into a completely different context, who wasn't encouraged towards these things, whose parents didn't have that kind of influence either . Then, suddenly, the person is faced with the following situation: I can work in retail, earn minimum wage, repetitive, Tedious work, serving thousands of people a day, or I can join that gang and earn 10,000. So the person goes to retail, then a year or two passes, they're struggling, they haven't achieved anything, they can't even pay rent, they're there dreaming of having those consumer products A, B,
C, D that they see other people having, the good cell phone, that kind of thing, they can't have any of that. They say: "Damn, I'll join that gang for just two or three years so I can at least acquire that, so I can at least buy that." I 'm saying this just to say the following, do you understand? It's very easy for us outsiders to deny all the social pressure that exists on this sector. Will there be some who suffer this pressure and never turn to crime? Yes. But there's a large majority. The large majority
will necessarily join the hundred or so people they killed in Alemão. There will be another hundred or so new ones in their place the following week. So, I agree with everything you say, no, I agree with the vast majority of your positions, Especially because you're the guy who researches, who studies, who really dedicates himself to understanding the issues. Yes. But when you talk about the legalization of drugs and everything else, man, it won't change anything. This group that's there, the drug dealers, you turn to them and say, "Now you can come here and legalize your
business and the state will charge you 30%. Then you come here and set up your crack den, pay 30% and everything's fine." Uh-huh. This guy will tell you: "Silly boy, the state doesn't talk to me. Or rather, I don't talk to the state. I'll pay 30% because I already make my thing happen here without paying anything to anyone. There's no point in you releasing this for..." This guy... he's not the kind of guy who wants to work properly, he doesn't want to, you know? It's different from the guy who wants to open a bakery, it's
different from the guy who wants to do some transport. Uh-huh. You can legalize the trafficking and it won't change anything. It will continue to be illegal. He won't give the 30% to anyone. If you read the law, he'd rather exchange gunfire with you than give you 30%. He won't give anything. All the legal trafficking, it just dissolves overnight. He won't, he won't Enter the system. He doesn't need to. Those who entered take him out because it's cheaper. He doesn't have 30% there that he earns, he has 50%, 50%, he has 200, 300, 400%. Do you
understand? It's that simple. Uh, he won't, he doesn't need to, he doesn't need to agree to anything. What makes trafficking so much money is that his state sells it, it's the risks involved, the other person won't enter, you understand? The state would have to be the supplier. So it's the medicine. So, that's it. I can even understand that, look. It's drugs. So, okay. Only the state can commercialize it. It becomes someone else's hands. He falls not because he agreed, he falls because he no longer has the 2000% that he has, due to the whole process
that has to be created for the distribution of this thing, because it's illegal. If you legalize drugs in the favela, it will become nothing more and nothing less than Paraguayan cigarettes, you know? You'll have companies producing that, commercializing it, making a profit, paying taxes, it will be more competitive than the marijuana of the guy in the favela. The guy won't go up the favela to get marijuana anymore, he'll buy What he wants on the corner of his street. Many will plant it at home like they already do. And in my opinion, it reduces use, okay?
Because you can use this resource for campaigns, anti-drug campaigns, for rehabilitation clinics and treatment of people who are addicted, because these things create, right, a chemical or even biological dependence, mainly chemical. And chemical dependence, I've met people who are users, right? Uh, the person stops using, they go into withdrawal, they start sweating all over. So, they have, they have, it's really a disease, you understand? It's very much so, it's not just a psychological thing that the body keeps craving. Your body gets used to the substance to the point where you start to have various side
effects from not using it. You can invest in treatment, right? So the user is paying to campaign against that and to treat, to get rid of the people who are addicted, it's the opposite. You're not financing a civil war machine in the interior of your own country, which generates crime, people, as long as there are serious social problems, there will be, okay? Yes, That's my position. There will have to be public security, there has to be combat, there has to be. Okay, now you 're going to end the crime that's structured on top of mega
illegal capitalist corporations worth billions. What is the PCC? A mega capitalist organization that generates billions in profit. That generates billions in profit. In that sense, the Comando Vermelho is moving in that direction. And all these large militias in the interior of Rio de Janeiro, right? You see the social problem in Rio de Janeiro, right? The entire region dominated by drug trafficking, Comando Vermelho, Terceiro Comando, and militias. So strong that they're already entering the state, right? We've strengthened these guys for years, right? Legalizing this is nothing more than taking power away from these guys and handing
it over to the state, right? You're going to say that they've become so strong, so large, that today drug trafficking represents 5% within the criminal faction, right? Yes, within the faction , no, in Rio de Janeiro, really, so you see how the PCC is a unique case, right? That's what I wanted to draw attention to in that video. I didn't want to give a one-sided, purely economic explanation Of the whole problem. There are trafficking routes, there are various problems involved. But in Rio de Janeiro today, basic services are offered by criminal organizations—gas, internet, the so-called
" gatos netos" of life, Ron Lessa, there, the payment Ron Lessa, who attacked Marielle, was going to receive a A set of lands where he would sell the plots and then exploit them economically, providing internet, cable TV, all that stuff. The guy has a little stall there where he's selling hot dogs, he pays the guy who controls the area, right? Obviously, the case of Rio is unique, right? There, drug trafficking is just one ingredient in that machine. Yes. If Brazil starts to organize this, the people might, because maybe even from a global perspective, right? Yes,
it would have an impact too, right? That's not it, you have to think about all the possibilities. In our case, it wouldn't change anything, because Brazil, the state is already a mess anyway. It would just say: "Ah, it continues to be the same old mess, that [ __ ] of the state." Oh, Machado, Robertinho said something here that I agree with him on, right? No, it's not the majority of people who will choose crime, right? In a Community there, there are many hardworking people who go through all the difficulties, but they don't get into crime,
right? And what you recently said here about your mother and father, if you were in a debate with Artur do Val, which I know you want to debate with him, he would say that this is to your mother's credit, right? And the other mothers didn't have the merit of raising their children, right? They got involved with criminals, and that's one of the problems of organized crime in Rio de Janeiro, which he even talked about here, there was a segment of him talking about it, where we asked him, "Is that the problem?" He said, "Yes, that's
the problem." What do you say about him on this? You're a guy who studies a lot. He says, and these are Artur's words, that this isn't his opinion, it's a study showing that families that aren't so organized have a higher probability of children going into crime and so on, that the mothers... and what he defended is that the father is wrong because he abandoned them, and the mother is also wrong because she can't raise them. So, but there's a study about this. Uh-huh. Yes, that's the basis of it; you don't even need to do the
study because the result is Obvious. It's clear that more disorganized families will produce people with more problems, and more organized ones won't. Now the question is, why are there so many organized families? The problem with these explanations, in the case that Ardu gave—I didn't see his speech, okay? I'm basing this on what you guys commented here— is that it places the blame on individuals, but doesn't analyze the conditions under which individuals operate, you understand? So, for example, I could clearly come here and say that I'm the guy, because unlike most, not all, people who are
successful on the internet, okay? I come from a family where I studied in public school my whole life, I left home at 14 years old. Uh, uh, I've been supporting myself since I was 18 or 19, okay? My mother and parents never needed to send me another single cent. Well, I'm aware that I come from a middle-class background and that I had better conditions than most of the population. You know when I realized that? It's something from my childhood. When you have school lunch in public school, you know, the school lunch. When I Realized that
I was... you didn't stand in line twice like I did, did you? Yeah, not just twice. The lunch I liked best was on Fridays, which was milk and crackers. While on other days, when it was pasta and things like that, I didn't even eat because I had my breakfast at home and I went home for lunch. Why would I eat pasta at 9:30 in the morning? Uh-huh. And I saw that 80% of the school not only ate it, but they were sad when it was milk and crackers, because it was the pasta lunch that satisfied
their hunger. It was weaker, you know? You understand? They'd just eat a little milk and crackers. That was nothing to him. He could have seconds of his lunch when it was macaroni, for example. That was the lunch he wouldn't have at home, you understand? If I had macaroni, I wouldn't even go to the line. I have a much better meal when I get home at lunchtime. You understand? I wouldn't even stand in line. It's obvious. It's easy to become... well, you have an organized family, if you have a job. Stable, if you have a good
salary. And look, it's not a normal condition. My family, which Isn't a family of wealthy origin, but for example, my maternal grandfather and grandmother were landowners . They weren't large landowners, no, but they were landowners who, because they planted there with some people who lived as caretakers on the property, a group that was hired at harvest time, fed the family throughout the year . In the region where they lived, they were respected, which is a district in Turmalina, right? Well, it was this better situation, for example, my mother's, that allowed my grandfather to look at
that and say: "Wow, to maintain that social condition, my mother and sisters came to Belo Horizonte to work as domestic servants, to get their teaching degrees, to return to Turmalina and teach. But she had a condition that allowed her to do that. The guy who worked on my grandfather's farm wouldn't even have considered that possibility. You see, they were fighting for their daily bread, for survival, to know if they would have something to eat the next day. At my grandfather's and mother's house, there wasn't that worry. They had food guaranteed, they could think about the
future. So that's the information that Artur Valdés gives, excuse me, it's obvious that people in organized families will fare better than those in disorganized families. The question is why there are organized and disorganized families. He attributes everything to the individual. It's very easy to have your material conditions guaranteed and Having an organized family . Now I want to see you have to fight for your daily bread every day, whether you like it or not, getting involved in some kind of shady dealings to earn your living at some level, to some degree. You see? You don't
have access to education, you come from a situation, from a country that had four centuries of slavery and where 70-80% of the population, not only were enslaved for three or four centuries, but at the end of the 19th century, they said: "No, now we have to whiten the country and we don't want these people even to be salaried workers in industry. Let's take migrants from Europe. Oh, and how are they going to survive? Figure it out, figure it out. You're free now. You're free now to [__], right? You don't have land. What are you going
to be able to do? Occupy a little piece of the hill in Rio de Janeiro, right? Build a shack and go to the street. Imagine you're saying, "You didn't build a structured family, did you? What are you talking about?" Do you understand? So, that's the point, folks. Do we have responsibility for our decisions? Of course we do. Now, we have to analyze the decisions people make in light of the conditions they had to make that decision, you understand? I was able to go out and study because I had a family that supported me, that encouraged
me, otherwise I wouldn't even have been able to think about it. Uh-huh. Do you understand? That encouraged me. Well, because I had a family that encouraged me from a young age to pursue literature and knowledge, and they said: "Look, here we don't have the capital to survive. So, to have access to a better-paying salary, you need a university degree." But at home, we couldn't afford private school. And we Have to take into account your mother's experiences, your father's experiences, they are fundamental to your upbringing too, right? Of course. And what is my mother's origin? If
you look into it, she's Portuguese. Do you understand why my grandfather was a small landowner? My grandfather was a small landowner. When we look at the ancestry, it's because it's colonists. It comes from Portugal. Black people, who originally constituted the majority of the Brazilian population, weren't given the right to own land. You couldn't... Yes, you couldn't own land, right? You couldn't own land. It was forbidden. Forbidden. Forbidden. Absolutely forbidden. Do you understand what I'm saying? So you have to take all these things into consideration. It's very easy to talk like that, you blame the individual.
Well, the individual may have, will have to have their share of the blame. Of course they do. They are responsible for their actions. Now, when you think socially, people have to understand the difference. You have to understand what conditions cause so many individuals to go down a certain path. People, Is there so much crime in Brazil? Because genetically Brazilians are prone to crime. In your study you say that the trend in Rio is even to worsen, that there is a very high probability of Petrobras leaving and most formal jobs are in mining. No, Petrobras' headquarters
won't leave there, I don't see any reason for that. The headquarters, the operational headquarters of Petrobras is in Rio and will continue to be. Rio, but Rio de Janeiro, the pre-salt is in Rio de Janeiro. So, the largest productive platform of Petrobras in this last period, of the last 10 years, is located in Rio de Janeiro, okay? Well, and today, Presalt accounts for 70-80% of Petrobras' production, and it's the oil with the highest rate, the highest profitability, a fine, high-quality oil, and so on. And Presalt, next year, it's at the peak of its productivity, which
works by pressure, okay? It's like those curves we saw in mathematics, like an inverted parabola, right? When you start extraction, this productivity increases, increases, then it reaches Its peak, it starts to decrease until it reaches the point where that platform loses its economic viability. So, starting next year, according to studies that Petrobras itself has carried out, Presalt's productivity will begin to decline. It will decline by 1900, 2030, 2030 is right around the corner, in 5 years, there will be nothing left. It will be very little. That's why Petrobras is making all these moves regarding the
equatorial margin or any other location, because it's to compensate for the decline in pre-salt production. So, what does that mean? It means that Petrobras' production tends to move out of Rio de Janeiro in the coming period, okay? The operational headquarters will remain there, which of course, generates a lot of money for Petrobras. Uh-huh. Right? Where the most specialized technicians, all those things tend to remain in Rio de Janeiro, but the bulk of the production that is currently in Rio de Janeiro will move out of there. This also has another impact, which is the royalties. Royalties
are a strong factor where exploration takes place. Uh-huh. Thinking about this for the people in Amazonas, it will be very good, because it's a poor state, with few sources of income, very little generation of Quality jobs for Macapá, right? Yes, but Macapá is the specific point, right? Where it will really be. But I'm talking about the entire surrounding area, because the RIT (Regional Oil Reserve) doesn't just go to the city, right? It's divided into a part for the municipality, but it also affects the state, doesn't it? Yes, of course it will be affected, right? It
will receive resources from that, it's not a mountain of money, okay? As people think, right? Because, regarding the equatorial margin, according to estimates, you only really know when exploration begins, right? Yes, after the research, they give an indication, right? Research has evolved a lot today, hasn't it? It's not a movie, it's not from that time, no. They already know it exists, right? And they have an idea, it could be larger, it could be smaller than the equatorial margin, it's a larger reserve than the pre-salt, but it doesn't have as high a productivity as the pre-salt.
First point, right? In other words, the cost of the oil is more expensive, right? That's the summary of productivity. The cost of pre-salt oil is the cheapest in the world. Only Paraguay and Russia have lower prices. Of the publicly traded companies, the cost of pre-salt oil is absurdly higher than that of all the American, British, French, and other companies that explore around the world. The cost of mining is much higher. So the royalty tends to be much lower, and besides, we never know the future, but the price of oil doesn't tend to stay as high
as it has in the past. But of course, once it's exploited, it will generate revenue for the region. Now, if this resource... If it weren't applied structurally, what would Rio de Janeiro have developed? It's true. Petrobras leaves there as the most deindustrialized major city in Brazil. What does Rio de Janeiro produce? Nothing, folks. There are no miracles. If you want to understand why Argentina is the way it is, for example, people say: "Oh, you thought Milei was going to work?" No, I was sure that anyone would fail, because Argentina is Brazil in an accelerated phase.
Uh-huh. Argentina is a country with a much more advanced degree of deindustrialization than Brazil, right? You go to the metropolitan area, You go to the metropolitan area of São Paulo, it's an industrial center. The metropolitan area of Belo Horizonte is an industrial center. Uh, you go to Curitiba, the same thing. This is a rule in Brazil. Normally you take the big cities, the metropolitan area is an industrial hub. But the Buenos Aires metropolitan area is a former industrial hub, the Albejan region, that area there, uh, where the Independiente Rass is located, and all that stuff
was an industrial hub of the past. There's nothing left, man. But our neighbors here, Uruguay and Paraguay, are they industrialized or not? No, they have attracted some industries, huh? They are very small countries, right? Uh, Robertinho, if you take, for example, Uruguay is smaller than Belo Horizonte. It has a smaller population than Belo Horizonte. Yes, Uruguay is larger, right? Its population, the population of Uruguay, is smaller than the population of Belo Horizonte. Not even the metropolitan area of Belo Horizonte, Belo Horizonte itself. It's 25.5 million in Uruguay. Uruguay has 3 million inhabitants. Uh, these countries,
for example, fluctuating meat prices, Uruguay, it's a pampa, the whole country with High meat productivity, all that stuff. Well, these countries are subject to, well, more local fluctuations or more specific measures that can produce certain improvements. Paraguay, which is also a very small country, to see, Paraguay is such a weak country, actually, one of Paraguay's main sources of income is the energy that Brazil buys, because Itaipu was divided between Brazil and Paraguay. Exactly. It's right on the border. Paraguay can't even use all of Taipu's energy, and that already shows how weak the country's wealth production
is. And Taipu today is a fraction of the energy produced in Brazil. It's one of the largest power plants, but there are several others the size of Taipu and a bunch of others of a slightly lower level. Taipu today, I don't know, I doubt that Itaipu is 5% of the energy that Brazil uses, less than that. And that's what gives money to Paraguay, which doesn't use all that Brazil has to buy from them. Itaipu supplies the entire state of Paraguay, and there's still a large surplus of energy that Brazil buys, which is one of Paraguay's
main energy sources. Now, why does it seem like Uruguay is improving? Paraguay Is improving? Because we have a relative view of things. If you take Bolivia, which is one of the poorest countries in Latin America, South America, well, even if Bolivia's situation improves, if everyone improves by 50% in the next 3 or 4 years, it will still be far inferior to Brazil's. But the perception of the population in Bolivia is based on what the previous standard of living was. Uh-huh. You understand? So, of course, if capitalism worsened everyone's situation everywhere, all the time, in every
situation, the capitalist world would have imploded a long time ago, even if it was for the worse. Capitalism provides cycles of accumulation that benefit certain regions of the world. Now, for Brazil, all this is very little. A commodity can generate a significant improvement for a small country, for example, Guyana. Uh-huh. Guyana discovered oil. Guyana is smaller than the state of Espírito Santo in Brazil. Smaller population than Espírito Santo. Can you imagine the equatorial margin just for Espírito Santo? Whoa. You understand? That's Guyana. It develops a lot, right? Yeah, but If you look inside Guyana and
see if there are any leftovers for the population as a whole, go ahead, but go to Guyana and see if the social situation there is among the worst in the Americas. You might increase the internal GDP there, but who's getting that part of the GDP? Old? Exactly. And it will improve things a little for the rest of the population. Now, structurally, what will remain? Let's see now. This has a drastic impact on Guyana. For Brazil, the impact is much smaller. Hey Machado, there are 10 months until the elections, right? And I'd like to do an
analysis with you of what might happen next year from your perspective, right? I just saw Lula, he'll certainly participate in the elections, right? Lula is a very strong presidential candidate. Who will compete with Lula? Will Tarcísio really leave the state of São Paulo? Is he a possible presidential candidate? I received information here that maybe Haddad will leave the Ministry of Economy, right? They even told me a possible name to replace him, André Roncaglia. He'll replace Haddad and Haddad will leave to run for governor of São Paulo, Right? So, Tarcísio probably won't run there, right? Tarciso
is running for president, so he's a strong name in São Paulo, they're putting Haddad forward. Many are saying that Lula will drastically lower the interest rates this year, which is necessary to encourage development and investment. What's your analysis of that? Right? Well, first of all, speaking of the election, the idea is certainly the party with which the candidacy will participate. We want to compete based on exactly everything we've been discussing regarding Brazil's structural problems, what needs to be done, right? But of course, we'll still have conversations, I know there's a whole discussion going on, people
talking about unity, fronts, and so on. This will still be discussed internally, but the most likely scenario is that we'll have a specific program to present that addresses this characterization of Brazil and what needs to be done, not to accelerate the process, but to go in a different direction. That's why if it were just about accelerating the process and already going in the direction we envisioned, We would have other conversations. Well, I'm not one for futurism. I think there's a big challenge for the Brazilian right wing; I don't know exactly what they're going to do.
There's a consolidated right wing in Brazil today, that's a fact, a consolidated right wing with strength in the country, which has a very large support base among evangelicals . This might be changing, but it's not something that changes overnight, and it's a challenge for the right wing to see what they're going to do. The scene is already there. Caiado, Zema, Tarcísio. I think the most likely scenario, I think, is that they'll unify around a figure who presents themselves with a less radical air, trying to capture a whole sector in Brazil today that isn't even a
Bolsonaro supporter. They want to bet on the more radical, you know? Like, let's talk about security, look. Security will be like this. Whoever is the dark figure will make this speech, they'll certainly make these speeches, right? Well, but with those things, those Bolsonaro conspiracy theories, that kind of thing. He's a more traditional political figure, but opportunistically betting on these Right-wing elements. I don't think it's someone like Nicolas Ferreira for this election. It's someone like Tarcísio, probably. That's what I imagine. A guess, a Tarcísio, a right-wing guy who 's the right-wing guy. The PT is either
right-wing or it's where the wind blows. But there are many more people than you imagine. Hey Robertinho, most of these people are mere opportunists. Uh, I'll give you an example, right? Take that guy who became a city councilor in São Paulo that I debated with, Pavanato. See what he used to say. He was a guy who, like Superman, posed as a liberal, doesn't even like religion. MBL was very liberal, the guy said: "Man, this thing with the evangelicals, man, that's getting a lot of votes, right? I showed up here doing those little dramatizations regarding abortion.
That's why I had that reaction regarding Murilo yesterday, you know? Don't come with those little dramatizations. And oh, no, but in Murilo's case it's true, man. He manipulates people personally. Unlike the politician who's there. Then you see the politician just to signal virtue. The guy changes his discourse, and then suddenly a..." Superman of life. No, I didn't care about religion, but now I'm going to church, my life is changing. Man, you see the lack of sincerity in people's faces. You see them talking about one side, but on the other side there's the whole campaign. You
see the guy on his knees in church. Yes. You see it in the big leaders, right? In those who are already in their homes, they do that. Well, yes. So that exists, without a doubt. But I wouldn't go so far as to say for sure, okay? Right versus Lula. No, I wouldn't, because I think, oops, uh, I wouldn't go so far as to say who wins, okay? As for guessing, who's the favorite, who isn't. No, I wouldn't say for sure anyone. I wouldn't say for sure anyone. Because I think it depends a lot on what
happens in Brazil from now on. From now on. Yes, very much. I, for example, including the policies that Lula will implement this year and the consequences of what happens in Brazil due to an international situation that is not under his control and that Brazil has done nothing to control. So, for example, will it be possible to lower the interest rate? I don't know if it will be possible to lower the interest rate. People Think that the government sets the interest rate, right? It's the market that pressures the interest rate, whether it's high or low. It
depends. Ah, but the government has a portion that it can negotiate with the market and say: "Look, let's lower this here this year, I win, next year I'll negotiate, I'll bring this and that to you." No, but the market is uncontrollable. Uh, Rodrigo, Rodrigão, uncontrollable market. When I say market, it's not what the people in the market want. There's no one who can negotiate. It's a decision, it's a decision of capital. It's capital, it's the metaphysics of capital, as I call it in my book, you understand? This thing, let's see how the market's health is,
that is, these are uncontrollable things, it's a world made by us, but that we don't control. That's it. So, what does this mean in practice? Uh, such as the reproduction of the economy that we don't control. If I lower the interest rate, inflation skyrockets, I think not. Let's lower it to see. You understand? Uh, these are actions that involve the capacity for expansion or not of Brazilian capitalism As a whole, and no individual agent in the market has control over this, not even Lula, you understand? And the guy at the Central Bank, he just analyzes
the data and says: "What all this is signaling to me is this, let's go this way." You understand? So much so that the PSD spent two years agitating against the guy at the Central Bank. Uh-huh. Because he was the guy chosen by Bolsonaro. So, they changed the guy chosen by Lula, who will even stay for two years of the next government, whoever it may be. Did the interest rate in Brazil change significantly? No, not at all. No. The guy at the Central Bank controlled the interest rate. No, but it was, but there was an excuse
there, right? It was legal to do that. There was an excuse, because it was... Now I can put all the blame on the guy Bolsonaro put in. And you can look at it, see? Uh, including a good part of those YouTubers, I'd have to go back to refresh my memory, but I remember several of them who claimed to be in opposition to Lula, but who kept glossing over things and blaming the guy at the Central Bank. And now that the guy at the Central Bank who 's there is the one Lula chose, nobody talks about
that anymore. Hmm. So that left that blamed the Central Bank to protect Lula, now doesn't talk about the Central Bank anymore because the guy the PT put in is there and the interest rate policy is the same. Why? Because no government controls the interest rate if you let the market work. To have control over it, you have to control the financial system, the strategic companies that are still there. Even if you're making things circulate through the market, you still don't have full control over it, okay? But no government controls the market; it is controlled, right?
Because, in 2022, Bolsonaro took some measures, right? The guy spent a lot of money trying to get elected, right? Lula made campaign promises, and none of them were fulfilled. Right? The population feels it, the population sees it, right? That nothing Lula promised has been done. So, many people are betting that Lula, to get re-elected, will have to make a very high capital investment, he'll have to put a lot of money into the market. Where will he get that money from? I think he's betting everything on income tax exemption for those earning R$ 5,000. Because that
targets a sector, can't it? Uh, but it targets a sector where he's been losing a lot of voters, that income bracket between what is currently two and five minimum wages, right? Or even up to 10 minimum wages. Because if the exemption is up to R$ 5,000, obviously, if the person earns R$ 10,000, uh, they'll have half the minimum wage, so there's some impact, right? So he's putting all his chips on that sector, it seems to me, okay? Whether it will be enough or not, I don't know. I think it will depend a lot on the
direction of the Brazilian economy. In turn, it depends on factors related to Brazil's overall dependence and structural dismantling, such as what the price of iron ore will be like next year? There are strong downward trends. What will the price of oil and Petrobras be like next year? There are strong downward trends. These international issues, how things will be for Brazilian agribusiness, this year ended up being favorable, okay? Because, apart from some sectors like coffee and such, due to Trump's tariffs, several others benefited. Soybeans, for example, China stopped buying soybeans from the United States, which was
good, the price of soybeans went up, and all this generates an increase in dollars in the Brazilian economy. Anyway, I think there are several factors there. And this flow of Brazilian currency, hence the issue of the IOF tax, whether the real will devalue or not. So, there are several factors. I don't doubt that a more serious crisis could erupt in Brazil if all these factors go down. And if that happens, Lula's government will hardly be re-elected, in my opinion. Why? Because his support margin is very tight. Uh-huh. You understand? But I'm not saying that's going
to happen, because I don't think it's a done deal, okay? Uh, if Brazil manages to maintain a slight increase in employment, even with these flexible jobs, as happened last year, if he manages to maintain a certain economic stability next year, he has a good chance of beating the right wing. He has a good chance of beating the right wing. But I'm not predicting anyone. So the thing is, I truly believe that Bolsonaro lost His election to himself last time. It wasn't Lula who got there and won. Bolsonaro lost to himself. Lula is in the same
scenario. He only loses to himself. If he controls things, if things stay as they are, he'll win again. I understand. I think there are factors involving Brazilian capitalism that he doesn't have control over. I know, but do you think the vast majority at the bottom are comfortable today, with so many jobs available? It's not good, but it's not... wait, they want to change things, they're not comfortable, Robertinho, but it's what I said before, people always analyze their situation based on how it was before. So, if it was a really bad situation, now it's a little
better, so people see that, right? So, that's how it is, but I don't think that's the big difficulty. Do you think the people at the top are uncomfortable with Lula? Because they're the ones who will decide if he stays or not, right? I think there's a division within the big Brazilian capital. There's a pro-Lula sector, but one that 's not willing to sacrifice, to take risks for the government, okay? This sector is more the one that Involves the Brazilian domestic market, like, as I said, Itaú, that abstract thing about banks, Itaú is linked to the
Brazilian domestic market. Even the industry federations have a division there as well, but it's a sector that has groups within it that lean towards the current Brazilian government. Now, I think there are sectors of medium capital, agribusiness, commerce—because commerce, mass commerce, seems to be a sector that is very dependent. From the domestic market, but no. That's what you always need to consume. The supermarket is the last thing you're going to cut. Uh-huh. You understand? So you have to lose a lot of income to not have a supermarket anymore, which is why there's a division in
Brazilian capitalism. I think there are sectors that desperately want governments like Bolsonaro's and that are willing to make labor reforms and severe attacks, thus raising the level of exploitation in Brazil in the shortest possible time to another level, including in the countryside, work analogous to slavery. I think there's a sector of Brazilian capital that doesn't support the PT under any Circumstances, but there's a sector of capital that does support it and is linked to sectors that depend on an improvement in the Brazilian domestic market to survive. That's the PT's difficulty. This sector has been losing
more and more space because the Brazilian domestic market is becoming increasingly dependent on foreign capital in every sense, because it enters the basket of this domestic market. I'm talking about companies that don't even need to come to Brazil. Okay? And national sectors that are in this chain are selling to foreign companies. Let's take the case of that girl Eliz Matsunaga, which company did they own? Yok. Yok. What did they do with Yok? They sold it. They sold it. Just to give an example. Uh-huh. Okay. And they sold it to Brazilian capital. No, it wasn't foreign.
Okay, just to give an example. The capitalist remains. So what happens to the guy from IOK? If the guy was with IOK before, I gave an example here to illustrate in people's minds, why does this group tend towards Bolsonaro's ideology? If the guy with IOK before, while a capitalist at IOK, he depended on the Brazilian domestic market. Uh, if the Brazilian domestic market contracts, The tendency of his product is to have a contraction. He's keeping an eye on these issues, he becomes an expert on these issues. Now, he's a guy who has 2 or 3
billion in income to invest. For him, fiscal adjustment, drastic cuts in public spending, and guaranteeing interest payments on the debt—which is at the base of the entire financial hierarchy—are more important now. Uh-huh. The guy from IOK, who was previously concerned with the domestic market, is now concerned with [...] the domestic market. Now I have 2 billion and I have to guarantee an income here, and I don't guarantee that income by investing productively in Brazil. So, a good example. I'll put it in rent-seeking there. I'll put it in rent-seeking there. And to guarantee rent-seeking, there has
to be a cut in public spending. For that, I want Bolsonaro. The hotel you 're staying at, man. The guy sold the hotel to a hotel chain. Yes. He's very happy. Very happy. Oh, later we'll celebrate here. I sold the hotel to a chain, to foreigners. And now, my brother, I'm going to put my money at interest. Then I won't generate more jobs, I won't invest, and I'll be fine. Yes, Exactly. When he owned the hotel, he had concerns about the Brazilian economy, which he doesn't have anymore. And he had several concerns when he owned
the hotel , concerns about the municipality, about the street, suppliers—it's a trend that capital itself creates, right? It's not the people. Take Robertinho now, who has a restaurant there, and say: "Robertinho, do you want to sell your restaurant for a good price so you can take that money and invest it?" No, I don't want to. That's all. I like to work, people don't understand. I love working like a condemned man. That's everything I was trying to tell Murilo yesterday. Murilo, I don't disagree with any of these elements, these harmful characteristics of banking capital that you're
talking about. But you're not realizing that capital as a whole creates, stimulates, and produces this. Yes, but then you can see that Brazilian capital will be divided between Bolsonaro and Lula. Good. Okay, Machado, let's have lunch so you can go back to BH. Let's go. Thanks, man! Always a huge pleasure. Uh, I loved it, as always, all my appearances here. And since you guys praised me, I'll praise you too, and it's not to flatter anyone, because I don't have that characteristic. Uh, ever since we... It started, I think you guys have evolved a lot as
hosts in the moderations and everything else. There was no way to say more, right? It wasn't from the first time I liked it. From the first time I liked it, you know? But I think yesterday, for example, I thought the moderation was fantastic, like, fantastic the moderation. Uh, and of course, I don't know, Murilo might even question the format and everything, but I think as a moderator he must have liked it too. So, I'm not talking about something of favoring, no, of managing to guarantee that the debate happens. Uh-huh. To manage to guarantee that the
debate happens, you have to understand what's happening in the debate. Yes. It's much more than a technical issue. And I think that's what has contributed to that, that's why the podcast is growing, I hope it grows, I really enjoy participating, I'm very grateful for the invitation and I'm entirely at your disposal. You are [ __ ] your opinion is Important. Anyone who wants to follow you, just because you said that, I'm going to give your social media to people to follow right now. Man, I don't even know my own social media. Look at me. Someone,
someone, someone wrote on my channel that I, oh, I really like the things you do. But you sell yourself very badly. Someone subscribed to my channel. I said: "Dude, it's the purest truth, worse than that, I sell myself badly and I'm not even interested in that. It's a collaboration, subscribe to Três Irmãos and while you're at it, subscribe to Machado's channel too." Orientação Maxista, that's the YouTube channel. The other social media links are in the description. Whoever wants to, I hope that when you lose the debate you think the moderation was good too. I want
that from you. We're working on making sure you actually lose a debate, man. Good opponents, look us up. You think Machado has never lost a debate? Oh dear. Robertinho, do you think you lost to BR? I don't think so, I don't think so. If you watch the debates, I'll say you beat Breno, and for me it was clear. True. It's Breno. Do you think Machado won? You think you lost to Miim, right? To Miurinho, I think you lost to Miurinho. I think so, okay. I think you lost to Bren, Albertinho thinks you beat Bren, he's
a big suck-up to Breno. No, I think so. I think Breno was better. Even Gustavo and I were talking yesterday, Gustavo said he could have done better in the debate. He could have done better in that debate. He could have done better. It doesn't mean I think he was better in terms of content, but I don't think that debate was [ __ ] mine. Eh, but after what happened, it's normal too, right? It was the first time there was a debate with someone with those characteristics, right? I'm debating normally with the right. Yes, yes, yes.
Well, I would have devised a different strategy. It's not that I think I was worse than him, but I would have devised a different strategy for that debate, which is to debate with you again, you see? You sent a message, said debate, ready, are you ready for the strategy? You're totally ready. Just schedule it. Machado is [ __ ] Thanks to our partner here on the channel as well, which is Goruja Concursos. Access it now. The link is in the description. You want to see the code on the screen. Get to know Goruja. You will
find the best teachers in Brazil, creating study plans for you, so you can occupy positions in the Federal Revenue Service, State Revenue Service, controllership, auditing, which are areas that pay high salaries. And it's essential to have qualified people in these sectors as well. So, if you dream of occupying these positions, you have 7 days to try this platform, which is very powerful and has a high approval rate. So, access it, you'll like it a lot. Hey, three brothers will also be in China in January, if you want to go with us, okay? The link is
in the description too. Get in touch with Fabi, make arrangements with her. It'll be me, Robertinho, Commander Robson Farinas, right, Robertinho? That's it. You have to see if there are still any spots available. I don't know if there are any left. It seems to be almost sold out. But book in advance. Don't miss this opportunity to experience China in a complete way, you know? With guides who speak your language. So you don't need to... Don't worry about the language. You already have a planned trip, everyone will be traveling on the bullet train, You already have
your ticket, you don't need to waste time at the ticket office, you'll be flying from one city to another, everything is already organized, just comfort and of course, knowledge of China, which Commander Farinasi is us. Comment below what you thought of the episode. Until next time. Trip to China. Bye.
![TRUMP CAPTURA MADURO NA VENEZUELA [com José Kobori] - Flow #544](https://img.youtube.com/vi/-S-PuK0IfSA/mqdefault.jpg)
