This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
My latest sets of edits are a compromise. If you have any issues, please bring it up here.-- Dali-Llama 22:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
"It is also possible to see with clarity that, under very difficult conditions, we promoted the equalization of the national debt --and that, together with the commercial opening, it created the basis for the implementation of the Plano Real".
I:móveis, veículos e aviões do governo foram colocados à venda.
~:Os objetivos do plano eram: enxugar a máquina administrativa do Estado, acabar com a inflação e modernizar a economia. Sem dúvida, as medidas causaram grande impacto e afetaram a vida da população em geral, dos trabalhadores aos empresários. Porém, os resulta.....
I will need you guys to make a list of the points of controversy in this page. So far I don’t really understand what points you guys disagree on and what are your different views on the subject. Making this list is actually pretty easy and helpful. Sparks1979 17:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so if I understood you correctly, there are two points of controversy in this article:
1- Ludovicapipa wants more emphasis to economical aspects of the plan.
2- Ludovicapipa understands the Collor plan ended hyperinflation, while Dali-Llama understands the Collor plan did not end hyperinflation. The sources you guys cite to defend your views are in another talk page, Collor’s.
I will take a look at the sources and will most a third opinion here afterwards. Sparks1979 19:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Ludovicapipa yes? 13:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Third opinion
Ok, the article seems a bit messy at the moment.
Third opinion
Quick analysis of the links you guys have presented:
I don’t like this link. It’s a collection of quotes from a speech of Euclydes Mello, a family member of Collor and his substitute in Congress. I don’t think Euclydes can give people a neutral view of Collor’s accomplishments. Also, I tried to look for a biography of Euclydes to check his credentials, and found nothing, not even inthe Federal Senate website. Is he an economist? Where did he study?
This link can be considered neutral, since it comes from “Isto É” magazine. All statements not made by Zélia come from Leonardo Attuch, a young Brazilian journalist. I think they can be considered a neutral and valid opinion, but since it’s a journalist and not an economist, I think they cannot be considered opinions of an expert. Leonardo Attuch claims:
1. “Plano Collor ended hyperinflation, although it did not end high levels of inflation”.
2. “Plano Collor paved the way for Plano Real”.
I repeat, since an expert does not make these claims, I think they cannot be used as a source on their own, but I do think they can be used as source in support of other sources.
3. Zélia claims: “we got the country rid of hyperinflation, although we failed in controlling inflation rates”.
This is an interesting statement. It brings us the question – what is hyperinflation? In Wikipedia, the corresponding article states hyperinflation is inflation that is “out of control”, although there is no precise definition universally accepted. This makes our job a lot harder. I still think the only way out of this dilemma is mentioning all opinions related to the subject or simply avoiding the term "hyperinflation".—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparks1979 ( talk • contribs)
1989 | 1990 | 1991 | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | 1995 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
29.5 | 29.2 | 17.4 | 23.1 | 31.1 | 22.9 | 1.7 |
"Em maio, o governo apresentou ao Congresso uma proposta de reforma fiscal destinada a aumentar a arrecadação federal e baixar a inflação, então estabilizada em 20% ao mês. Problemas na sua base política, contudo, impediram a aprovação do projeto, apesar do pronunciamento favorável do diretor-gerente do FMI, Michel Camdessus, para quem o programa econômico do governo brasileiro não sobreviveria sem um ajuste fiscal. O aval do FMI, órgão com o qual o ministro Marcílio Marques Moreira mantinha boas relações, seria muito importante para que, em julho, o governo fechasse um acordo com os bancos internacionais em torno da redução da dívida externa e da ampliação do prazo de seu pagamento." [8] Ludovicapipa yes? 11:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
paragraph! saying "Collor ended hipnf. but it returned due to political matters and monetary issues" is like saying you killed someone, but he made a full recovery. A more accurate statement is that you hurt someone and he made a full recovery. HUGE difference. And no, I don't blame the Portuguese colonizers--but that doesn't mean we should be giving out credit beyond what is due. And my opinion on the Collor Plan (or the Plano Real, for that matter) is of no consequence. I'll say it again: Focus on the facts, not opinion. You're not supposed to blame or glorify anyone! This is an encyclopedia, not a shrine!
This is another interesting link. It can be considered neutral to some extent. It’s written by a famous Brazilian journalist that writes in Estado de São Paulo, João Mellão Neto. The only catch is that João Mellão Neto was one of Collor’s Ministers, therefore, his claims should be read with some reservation.
Ludovicapipa yes? 22:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
1. He claims, “less than one year after the Plan, hyperinflation was back”. That implies hyperinflation was controlled for about a year, and eventually came back, during Collor’s term.
2. He claims, “Collor’s Plan had a positive side, which was the opening of Brazilian markets to free trade and foreign investments, consequently stimulating improvements in Brazil’s industrial structure”. He explain this happened because “Brazilian industries were forced to improve due to strong competition arriving from abroad”.
Personally, I think both claims sound reasonable. My father always told me about the protection of Brazil’s computer hardware industry in the 80s and how it generally didn’t invest because there was practically no competition from abroad. However, what João Mellão Neto apparently forgot to mention – something my dad always reminded me of – is that many sectors of Brazil’s industry collapsed since they were not really prepared to compete once protection was lifted.
I don’t like this link because it isn’t signed, and it was published in a pretty meaningless website in terms of credentials. It doesn’t seem to add much to what the previous link already stated.
1. “Plano Collor 1 was a failure, as well as Plano Collor 2”
2. “Inflation was not controlled and the economy was not stabilized”.
3. “The plan wasn’t completely unsuccessful – privatizations, the opening of markets to free trade, and the initiative of development of industries introduced a new economical mentality in Brazil”.
Ok, this is an article that was used to defend the claim that Collor’s policies were followed by FHC and then by Lula.
The sentences that may be used to support this are: “Esse processo de desindustrialização, segundo economistas, teve origem na segunda metade dos anos 80, com a crise da dívida externa, e foi aprofundado pela hiperinflação e por políticas macroeconômicas hostis à produção, que tentavam combater a escalada dos preços. Tais políticas - iniciadas com a abertura do governo Collor - foram continuadas por Fernando Henrique Cardoso e Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, segundo economistas e industriais ouvidos pela Folha.”
Personally, I think these sentences are not trying to say the exact same policies were used by Collor, FHC and Lula. In my opinion what the article is trying to say here is that Collor, FHC and Lula centered their attention on policies that focused on controlling inflation rates, in detriment of incentives geared towards industrial and economical growth.
In the other hand, I think it would be fair to claim that Collor started a privatization program that was continued by FHC (though not necessarily by Lula). This seems pretty obvious though, and I don’t think it has been a source of dispute. What you two have been arguing about is whether FHC followed Collor’s economical policy of controlling inflation. We would need to be careful with semantics here. I think all governments have focused on inflation control since Sarney (Plano Cruzado aimed at controlling inflation), although each government had their own plan, save for Lula’s. In short, I think we need to clarify what exactly may have been continued from one government to the other. A general claim of “FHC followed Collor” or “Lula followed FHC” sounds very ambiguous and can be misleading. We need to answer the question: “Each government followed its antecessor in what aspects?” Policies that followed inflation control? Sounds reasonable, but then we need to clarify each government had its own plan, save for Lula’s: Plano Cruzado, Plano Cruzado II, Plano Verão, Plano Collor I, Plano Collor II, Plano Real. What do they have in common? All of them focused on the same problem: inflation. However, it seems each plan had specific and unique economical techniques behind them. We can establish a pattern in terms of “goals”, but not in terms of techniques.
Well, this was a very time consuming read. I think it was used to support the claim of continuity between FHC and Collor. One of the statements that comes close to this would be: “The reforms of FHC, which included the policy of economical development carried out by Collor, focused on privatization programs” (page 2). In terms of privatization, I think this claim supports continuity, though not in terms of inflation control. Again, we need to be careful with semantics. Another one would be “The different governments of Collor, Itamar, FHC and Lula established a continuous agenda of reforms” (page 4). Note in this case the author is referring specifically to the idea of “free market economy” with little State intervention.
As for credentials, I tried to google “João Paulo M. Peixoto” and had no luck finding out who he is. However, since it’s a study published by the University of Brasília, which is a very respected institution, I think it deserves credit.
This link is neutral (Época) but it doesn’t really add anything new to the debate. It says “Zélia ended hyperinflation of 80% monthly rates”, but that doesn’t mean it is saying Zélia ended all rates of hyperinflation.
Essentially this article talks about privatization programs in Brazil. I don’t really see what it can add towards your disputes.
Long, difficult and tiring read. The article basically goes into details of circumstances surrounding Plano Collor and inflation. It makes some interesting claims, although the other sources already covered the same points:
“90 days after Plano Collor, recession was still expected, and it was already clear inflation was back”.
“The failure of Plano Collor in controlling inflation can be explained due to other reasons”.
This article clearly states Plano Collor failed in controlling inflation. As for credibility, everyone knows who Bresser-Pereira is.
This link isn’t really useful for your debate, although it’s quite interesting. I don’t remember which one of you used this link, but I liked it. It comments the claim that te unprepared Brazilian population can't vote coherently, due to lack of adequate education. At the end, it concludes this is a false premise. I disagree with this study’s conclusion, but that isn’t important for our debate.
Some interesting statements regarding your debate:
“Free trade has generated good and bad results with FHC. … The way in which Brazil opened its doors to external markets made large sectors of Brazilian industries fold due to foreign competition. Many Brazilian factories closed its doors … unemployment reached record levels in 1998”.
Ok, I admit at this point I’m really tired of reading all this papers. This one is published by UNIP, a rubbish institution, so I don’t think it deserves much respect. If anyone wants to use it, please highlight what bits are interesting because I’m not reading it through.
This is the final link I was going to analyze. It’s quite a long read and I’m not really going to go through it before someone highlights what the interesting points are. It’s the transcription of some sort of public hearing. Not so sure about credentials here.
+ + +
Ok, I think some points can be established from the links I’ve just gone through:
Hope it helps. Sparks1979 19:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Ludovicapipa yes? 11:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I have to be honest in saying that I have a lot more experience with economics than I've purported to have. I didn't want it to affect the discussion, since Wikipedia does not (and should not) defer to credentials. I tried my best to argue things based off of policy to keep it NPOV and not inflame the Ludovica's personal attacks, but it became clear that opinion and POV were the only things Ludovica understood. Saying that Collor ended hyperinflation and then it came back from the dead was the last straw that broke the camel's back (also known as "a última gota d'água"). I swear I heard Mário Henrique Simonsen rolling over in his grave. After seeing Sparks' great work in Law enforcement in Brazil, a subject where he clearly knows his stuff, I felt compelled to act.
This is what I meant when I talked about an article that explains policy through facts, not use opinion for the sole purpose of apportioning credit.
The sources range from good old Bresser to the unimpeachable IPEA to the random college professor. It's important to mention that these are not being sourced for their opinion. The few instances where it was needed to make a point (IE:Why the plan failed), I used multiple sources who used quantitative data to prove their points. Anyways, let me know what you think. I'm pretty sure I covered the points of compromise, but I may have skipped one or two.-- Dali-Llama 07:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
In response do Ludovica's comments on Sparks' talk page:
To the extent that you (Ludovica) accuse me of ignoring Sparks' comments, I'll leave that up for Sparks to decide. As I previously stated, Sparks provided a critical read of the sources you've provided (and an excellent one at that) and the conclusions or citations you drew from them. From the twelve sources you provided, eight were considered either not reliable per WP:RS or not relevant or redundant to the point you were trying to make. In the end, Sparks provided compromise suggestions on two separate issues: hyperinflation and continuity. On hyperinflation, Sparks' suggestion seemed to be geared more towards ending debate by finding an acceptable compromise in the absence of a clear metric for hyperinflation. You said that he "ended hyperinflation" and then it came back. When I presented quantitative evidence that was not the case, you tried to defend your point by what to me seems to be a misunderstanding of the theories of fiscal and monetary policy. So what I did was greatly expand what tackling hyperinflation entails, its challenges (mostly re-monetization) and what the government's actions were. I don't think a single economist in the world will say something as singular as "Collor ended hyperinflation" when the historical quantitative evidence is so crystal-clear on the issue.
And on continuity, Sparks' compromise edit, while I agreed with it with a minor reservation, does not "fit" into the article as it stands because it was expanded to a considerably higher granularity which I (and indeed Sparks) had called for earlier. To the extent that you get down from your soapbox and cease to push what you think is the redress for a "historical injustice", and cite individual continuity events with a reliable source, we'll include it in the article as long as it complies with WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.-- Dali-Llama 20:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
My latest sets of edits are a compromise. If you have any issues, please bring it up here.-- Dali-Llama 22:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
"It is also possible to see with clarity that, under very difficult conditions, we promoted the equalization of the national debt --and that, together with the commercial opening, it created the basis for the implementation of the Plano Real".
I:móveis, veículos e aviões do governo foram colocados à venda.
~:Os objetivos do plano eram: enxugar a máquina administrativa do Estado, acabar com a inflação e modernizar a economia. Sem dúvida, as medidas causaram grande impacto e afetaram a vida da população em geral, dos trabalhadores aos empresários. Porém, os resulta.....
I will need you guys to make a list of the points of controversy in this page. So far I don’t really understand what points you guys disagree on and what are your different views on the subject. Making this list is actually pretty easy and helpful. Sparks1979 17:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so if I understood you correctly, there are two points of controversy in this article:
1- Ludovicapipa wants more emphasis to economical aspects of the plan.
2- Ludovicapipa understands the Collor plan ended hyperinflation, while Dali-Llama understands the Collor plan did not end hyperinflation. The sources you guys cite to defend your views are in another talk page, Collor’s.
I will take a look at the sources and will most a third opinion here afterwards. Sparks1979 19:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Ludovicapipa yes? 13:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Third opinion
Ok, the article seems a bit messy at the moment.
Third opinion
Quick analysis of the links you guys have presented:
I don’t like this link. It’s a collection of quotes from a speech of Euclydes Mello, a family member of Collor and his substitute in Congress. I don’t think Euclydes can give people a neutral view of Collor’s accomplishments. Also, I tried to look for a biography of Euclydes to check his credentials, and found nothing, not even inthe Federal Senate website. Is he an economist? Where did he study?
This link can be considered neutral, since it comes from “Isto É” magazine. All statements not made by Zélia come from Leonardo Attuch, a young Brazilian journalist. I think they can be considered a neutral and valid opinion, but since it’s a journalist and not an economist, I think they cannot be considered opinions of an expert. Leonardo Attuch claims:
1. “Plano Collor ended hyperinflation, although it did not end high levels of inflation”.
2. “Plano Collor paved the way for Plano Real”.
I repeat, since an expert does not make these claims, I think they cannot be used as a source on their own, but I do think they can be used as source in support of other sources.
3. Zélia claims: “we got the country rid of hyperinflation, although we failed in controlling inflation rates”.
This is an interesting statement. It brings us the question – what is hyperinflation? In Wikipedia, the corresponding article states hyperinflation is inflation that is “out of control”, although there is no precise definition universally accepted. This makes our job a lot harder. I still think the only way out of this dilemma is mentioning all opinions related to the subject or simply avoiding the term "hyperinflation".—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparks1979 ( talk • contribs)
1989 | 1990 | 1991 | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | 1995 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
29.5 | 29.2 | 17.4 | 23.1 | 31.1 | 22.9 | 1.7 |
"Em maio, o governo apresentou ao Congresso uma proposta de reforma fiscal destinada a aumentar a arrecadação federal e baixar a inflação, então estabilizada em 20% ao mês. Problemas na sua base política, contudo, impediram a aprovação do projeto, apesar do pronunciamento favorável do diretor-gerente do FMI, Michel Camdessus, para quem o programa econômico do governo brasileiro não sobreviveria sem um ajuste fiscal. O aval do FMI, órgão com o qual o ministro Marcílio Marques Moreira mantinha boas relações, seria muito importante para que, em julho, o governo fechasse um acordo com os bancos internacionais em torno da redução da dívida externa e da ampliação do prazo de seu pagamento." [8] Ludovicapipa yes? 11:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
paragraph! saying "Collor ended hipnf. but it returned due to political matters and monetary issues" is like saying you killed someone, but he made a full recovery. A more accurate statement is that you hurt someone and he made a full recovery. HUGE difference. And no, I don't blame the Portuguese colonizers--but that doesn't mean we should be giving out credit beyond what is due. And my opinion on the Collor Plan (or the Plano Real, for that matter) is of no consequence. I'll say it again: Focus on the facts, not opinion. You're not supposed to blame or glorify anyone! This is an encyclopedia, not a shrine!
This is another interesting link. It can be considered neutral to some extent. It’s written by a famous Brazilian journalist that writes in Estado de São Paulo, João Mellão Neto. The only catch is that João Mellão Neto was one of Collor’s Ministers, therefore, his claims should be read with some reservation.
Ludovicapipa yes? 22:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
1. He claims, “less than one year after the Plan, hyperinflation was back”. That implies hyperinflation was controlled for about a year, and eventually came back, during Collor’s term.
2. He claims, “Collor’s Plan had a positive side, which was the opening of Brazilian markets to free trade and foreign investments, consequently stimulating improvements in Brazil’s industrial structure”. He explain this happened because “Brazilian industries were forced to improve due to strong competition arriving from abroad”.
Personally, I think both claims sound reasonable. My father always told me about the protection of Brazil’s computer hardware industry in the 80s and how it generally didn’t invest because there was practically no competition from abroad. However, what João Mellão Neto apparently forgot to mention – something my dad always reminded me of – is that many sectors of Brazil’s industry collapsed since they were not really prepared to compete once protection was lifted.
I don’t like this link because it isn’t signed, and it was published in a pretty meaningless website in terms of credentials. It doesn’t seem to add much to what the previous link already stated.
1. “Plano Collor 1 was a failure, as well as Plano Collor 2”
2. “Inflation was not controlled and the economy was not stabilized”.
3. “The plan wasn’t completely unsuccessful – privatizations, the opening of markets to free trade, and the initiative of development of industries introduced a new economical mentality in Brazil”.
Ok, this is an article that was used to defend the claim that Collor’s policies were followed by FHC and then by Lula.
The sentences that may be used to support this are: “Esse processo de desindustrialização, segundo economistas, teve origem na segunda metade dos anos 80, com a crise da dívida externa, e foi aprofundado pela hiperinflação e por políticas macroeconômicas hostis à produção, que tentavam combater a escalada dos preços. Tais políticas - iniciadas com a abertura do governo Collor - foram continuadas por Fernando Henrique Cardoso e Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, segundo economistas e industriais ouvidos pela Folha.”
Personally, I think these sentences are not trying to say the exact same policies were used by Collor, FHC and Lula. In my opinion what the article is trying to say here is that Collor, FHC and Lula centered their attention on policies that focused on controlling inflation rates, in detriment of incentives geared towards industrial and economical growth.
In the other hand, I think it would be fair to claim that Collor started a privatization program that was continued by FHC (though not necessarily by Lula). This seems pretty obvious though, and I don’t think it has been a source of dispute. What you two have been arguing about is whether FHC followed Collor’s economical policy of controlling inflation. We would need to be careful with semantics here. I think all governments have focused on inflation control since Sarney (Plano Cruzado aimed at controlling inflation), although each government had their own plan, save for Lula’s. In short, I think we need to clarify what exactly may have been continued from one government to the other. A general claim of “FHC followed Collor” or “Lula followed FHC” sounds very ambiguous and can be misleading. We need to answer the question: “Each government followed its antecessor in what aspects?” Policies that followed inflation control? Sounds reasonable, but then we need to clarify each government had its own plan, save for Lula’s: Plano Cruzado, Plano Cruzado II, Plano Verão, Plano Collor I, Plano Collor II, Plano Real. What do they have in common? All of them focused on the same problem: inflation. However, it seems each plan had specific and unique economical techniques behind them. We can establish a pattern in terms of “goals”, but not in terms of techniques.
Well, this was a very time consuming read. I think it was used to support the claim of continuity between FHC and Collor. One of the statements that comes close to this would be: “The reforms of FHC, which included the policy of economical development carried out by Collor, focused on privatization programs” (page 2). In terms of privatization, I think this claim supports continuity, though not in terms of inflation control. Again, we need to be careful with semantics. Another one would be “The different governments of Collor, Itamar, FHC and Lula established a continuous agenda of reforms” (page 4). Note in this case the author is referring specifically to the idea of “free market economy” with little State intervention.
As for credentials, I tried to google “João Paulo M. Peixoto” and had no luck finding out who he is. However, since it’s a study published by the University of Brasília, which is a very respected institution, I think it deserves credit.
This link is neutral (Época) but it doesn’t really add anything new to the debate. It says “Zélia ended hyperinflation of 80% monthly rates”, but that doesn’t mean it is saying Zélia ended all rates of hyperinflation.
Essentially this article talks about privatization programs in Brazil. I don’t really see what it can add towards your disputes.
Long, difficult and tiring read. The article basically goes into details of circumstances surrounding Plano Collor and inflation. It makes some interesting claims, although the other sources already covered the same points:
“90 days after Plano Collor, recession was still expected, and it was already clear inflation was back”.
“The failure of Plano Collor in controlling inflation can be explained due to other reasons”.
This article clearly states Plano Collor failed in controlling inflation. As for credibility, everyone knows who Bresser-Pereira is.
This link isn’t really useful for your debate, although it’s quite interesting. I don’t remember which one of you used this link, but I liked it. It comments the claim that te unprepared Brazilian population can't vote coherently, due to lack of adequate education. At the end, it concludes this is a false premise. I disagree with this study’s conclusion, but that isn’t important for our debate.
Some interesting statements regarding your debate:
“Free trade has generated good and bad results with FHC. … The way in which Brazil opened its doors to external markets made large sectors of Brazilian industries fold due to foreign competition. Many Brazilian factories closed its doors … unemployment reached record levels in 1998”.
Ok, I admit at this point I’m really tired of reading all this papers. This one is published by UNIP, a rubbish institution, so I don’t think it deserves much respect. If anyone wants to use it, please highlight what bits are interesting because I’m not reading it through.
This is the final link I was going to analyze. It’s quite a long read and I’m not really going to go through it before someone highlights what the interesting points are. It’s the transcription of some sort of public hearing. Not so sure about credentials here.
+ + +
Ok, I think some points can be established from the links I’ve just gone through:
Hope it helps. Sparks1979 19:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Ludovicapipa yes? 11:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I have to be honest in saying that I have a lot more experience with economics than I've purported to have. I didn't want it to affect the discussion, since Wikipedia does not (and should not) defer to credentials. I tried my best to argue things based off of policy to keep it NPOV and not inflame the Ludovica's personal attacks, but it became clear that opinion and POV were the only things Ludovica understood. Saying that Collor ended hyperinflation and then it came back from the dead was the last straw that broke the camel's back (also known as "a última gota d'água"). I swear I heard Mário Henrique Simonsen rolling over in his grave. After seeing Sparks' great work in Law enforcement in Brazil, a subject where he clearly knows his stuff, I felt compelled to act.
This is what I meant when I talked about an article that explains policy through facts, not use opinion for the sole purpose of apportioning credit.
The sources range from good old Bresser to the unimpeachable IPEA to the random college professor. It's important to mention that these are not being sourced for their opinion. The few instances where it was needed to make a point (IE:Why the plan failed), I used multiple sources who used quantitative data to prove their points. Anyways, let me know what you think. I'm pretty sure I covered the points of compromise, but I may have skipped one or two.-- Dali-Llama 07:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
In response do Ludovica's comments on Sparks' talk page:
To the extent that you (Ludovica) accuse me of ignoring Sparks' comments, I'll leave that up for Sparks to decide. As I previously stated, Sparks provided a critical read of the sources you've provided (and an excellent one at that) and the conclusions or citations you drew from them. From the twelve sources you provided, eight were considered either not reliable per WP:RS or not relevant or redundant to the point you were trying to make. In the end, Sparks provided compromise suggestions on two separate issues: hyperinflation and continuity. On hyperinflation, Sparks' suggestion seemed to be geared more towards ending debate by finding an acceptable compromise in the absence of a clear metric for hyperinflation. You said that he "ended hyperinflation" and then it came back. When I presented quantitative evidence that was not the case, you tried to defend your point by what to me seems to be a misunderstanding of the theories of fiscal and monetary policy. So what I did was greatly expand what tackling hyperinflation entails, its challenges (mostly re-monetization) and what the government's actions were. I don't think a single economist in the world will say something as singular as "Collor ended hyperinflation" when the historical quantitative evidence is so crystal-clear on the issue.
And on continuity, Sparks' compromise edit, while I agreed with it with a minor reservation, does not "fit" into the article as it stands because it was expanded to a considerably higher granularity which I (and indeed Sparks) had called for earlier. To the extent that you get down from your soapbox and cease to push what you think is the redress for a "historical injustice", and cite individual continuity events with a reliable source, we'll include it in the article as long as it complies with WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.-- Dali-Llama 20:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)