Talk:Economy of Brazil
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Economy of Brazil article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, realise, defence, artefact), and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without consensus.|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
I wouldn't mind having some of the flow numbers, and especially the increase numbers, like GDP growth, for a few years back, one year really doedn't say a lot. Of course, you would like to have a chart of especially GDP growth rate.--Jerryseinfeld 20:40, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm someone was playing around changing words into godzilla and the like but as i have a mastercopy i fixed it relatively quickly. Replayee
This page needs updates. Angra II Nuclear Plant has been in operation for years and we only import 12% of our oil, not 33%.
The data concerning oil imports/exports and consumption/production is obsolete. Normally, I wouldn't much mind, but seeing as the country has recently reached a consumption/production ratio where it actually produces more than it uses, I'd say corrections are in order.
GDP growth data updated
Oil and Andres
Brazil has become self-sufficient in oil, it is even beginning to export it. Therefore I think the text regarding oil should be updated. As for Andres, read it carefully and you will see it mentions poverty and regional disparities within Brazil, such as that existent between Northern and Sourthern states. It is not an over optimistic article, it is a realistic one, which talks about the well-known difficulties Brazil had and still experiences plus the not so well-known side of the country. It is good because many still don't know how advanced Brazil is in some sectors.
CIA world factbook. Really?
I'm currently doing a comparative research on the BRIC countries mostly focused on macroeconomic differences and similarities. I was looking for some reliable sources in order to collect this informations and I started using the CIA world factbook. Then a friend of mine just make me notice that the CIA world factbook itself, has no references. All the datas about countries' economy are without sources! I decided then to do a comparison between the data from the CIA e other sources (World Bank, IMF, OECD, Consulting companies, Governments) and there are many sensible differences in the data displayed. Datas on China are the most Biased. Data on Russia too.
I noticed that almost every country here on wikipedia.en is CIA worldfactbook based and that sounds weird for me. We are providing the world countries stats originated by a single Intelligence Unit that actually is serving the United States of America. Sounds really weird.
- The CIA World Factbook is an American source, but I want to remind you that Wikipedia was also started by Americans. Where the information originated doesn't matter. Facts are facts. Most of the information presented isn't really subject for debate because it is immutable. The GDP of Brazil is the same when America looks at it as it would be if England looked at it. Or India, or Turkey, or Bosnia. The list goes on. Just because it comes from America doesn't mean its biased. Also, the data collected from the factbook comes directly from the counties themselves, so that's why it doesn't need a reference. SeabassTheFish (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)