Foreign Policy’s War of Ideas blog has a headline out that reads: “The Case for Kicking All the Countries Out of the BRICS.” The post collects critiques from a variety of experts questioning the validity of the BRICs as a coherent investing thesis.
Along with intervening to tamp down fuel prices, Brazil moved to keep down utility rates, bank lending profits, and mobile-phone costs. None of which has particularly encouraged BRIC residents to put money into their homeland shares.
Here is Mark Adomanis’ point regarding Brazil x Russia:
“Since economic modernization is supposedly linked with democratization and is supposedly prevented by authoritarianism, we should expect to see that Brazil is developing more quickly than Russia, or, at the very least, is developing at the same rate. What has actually happened? After an extremely impressive performance in 2010, Brazil’s economy has performed abysmally even after significant government efforts at stimulus. Russia, after getting hammered during 2009, has had a sustained if not overly rapid recovery, and is on track to record GDP growth.[…]
If Russia’s economy is decaying, sclerotic, primitive, and fragile, what the heck does that make Brazil’s? What sorts of adjectives would we need to use to adequately describe it? “Rotten?” “Paralyzed?” “Stone-aged?” “Shattered?” I know that Brazil still has a large number of serious economic problems, and, even in the most optimistic of analyses, is desperately in need of certain structural reforms. But I don’t think it’s remotely fair to paint Brazil as some sort of uniquely horrible country or to suggest it faces an imminent existential crisis. But if Russia is actually on the verge of economic apocalypse, why isn’t Brazil (which is much poorer on a per capita basis and is growing more slowly) similarly vulnerable?”