How the BRICS nations failed to rebuild the global financial order(france24.com)
france24.com
How the BRICS nations failed to rebuild the global financial order
https://www.france24.com/en/economy/20230824-how-the-brics-nations-failed-to-rebuild-the-global-financial-order
6 comments
BRICS nations have simply nothing in common and are united only in opposition to the "west". That is the reason this union had failed before and will fail in future. The issue compounds by the fact that all of them are in the various financial crises.
Exactly. Brics is more a term used in the west to describe not-us large countries than anything that actually exists for those countries. India and China have an open conflict over their border for fucks sake. They're not uniting any time soon.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/28/india-accuses-...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/28/india-accuses-...
> Brics is more a term used in the west to describe not-us large countries than anything that actually exists for those countries.
That’s where (as BRIC – without South Africa, though the countries together were sometimes called “the BRICs”) it originated 20+ years ago, but then the countries got together, for their own reasons, and made it an real (or, at least, formally official) bloc. Each of them uses it for their own image puffing, and its been particularly important in that role for Russia lately (especially with CSTO being shown to be worthless.) Still not clear that the bloc (despite having an official organization, membership, summits, etc.) is all that meaningful substantively.
That’s where (as BRIC – without South Africa, though the countries together were sometimes called “the BRICs”) it originated 20+ years ago, but then the countries got together, for their own reasons, and made it an real (or, at least, formally official) bloc. Each of them uses it for their own image puffing, and its been particularly important in that role for Russia lately (especially with CSTO being shown to be worthless.) Still not clear that the bloc (despite having an official organization, membership, summits, etc.) is all that meaningful substantively.
First time I saw BRIC was over a decade ago plastered all over Brasil.
> BRICS nations have simply nothing in common and are united only in opposition to the “west”.
I’m not even sure they are aligned in that, either for the countries referenced in the name, or for the countries being added in the 2024 expansion class.
I’m not even sure they are aligned in that, either for the countries referenced in the name, or for the countries being added in the 2024 expansion class.
There's no meaningful alignment. They were just bonds that were moving together for a while, and some investment banker published a bombastic white paper about it and it stuck.
Thanks be to Russia’s self-own with Ukraine and China’s self-own with imprisoning their own citizens at scale and scaring the hell out of the world’s business investors.
BIS is the new collaboration space of some sanity.
BIS is the new collaboration space of some sanity.
South African energy crisis means no one will invest there either. Down to BI.
Not that France has a vested interest in Africa but an alliance built on "we just don't like US/EU" is doomed to fail - there is no way in the foreseeable to outcompete that power block for now.
Also three alliance members China/KSA/UAE will be expected to carry the rest and I don't think they have the tolerance or the stomach for it.
Also three alliance members China/KSA/UAE will be expected to carry the rest and I don't think they have the tolerance or the stomach for it.
This was expected. Two of the largest economies in the BRICS are not on friendly terms, have very little in common (historically and culturally) and have ongoing contentious issues over territory.
What an absurd premise-- they're just getting started. And the US' abuse of financial sanctions is only accelerating the process.
Sanctions seem perfectly fine when a country invades another.
Trade is a privilege, not a right.
That privilege can be improved ( trade agreement) or taken away ( sanctions).
Additionally, the biggest "financial sanction" was from Belgium ( thrown out of SEPA), not the US.
Trade is a privilege, not a right.
That privilege can be improved ( trade agreement) or taken away ( sanctions).
Additionally, the biggest "financial sanction" was from Belgium ( thrown out of SEPA), not the US.
>Sanctions seem perfectly fine when a country invades another.
Except that they're proven to not work, especially in the recent case you're alluding to. They generally backfire, and punish only the general population. And there's zero legitimate excuse for the sanctions against many countries, like Venezuela and Cuba-- naked power politics.
Except that they're proven to not work, especially in the recent case you're alluding to. They generally backfire, and punish only the general population. And there's zero legitimate excuse for the sanctions against many countries, like Venezuela and Cuba-- naked power politics.
They do work, it just has a delay. It's important to weaken a bad actor to reduce it's influence ( see: rubble to dollar since 2014, emigration, North Korea, .... )
It only takes 3,5 % of the population to protest ( ymmv ) - https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35...
I'm not saying that it should still be applied to Cuba/Venezuela. I'm not saying there is no reason to either.
It only takes 3,5 % of the population to protest ( ymmv ) - https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35...
I'm not saying that it should still be applied to Cuba/Venezuela. I'm not saying there is no reason to either.
> Except that they're proven to not work
It depends on what the goal posts are for what "work" means. I think sanctions work when their cost offsets some of the benefit received through the "undesired behavior" of the target country. They also "work" when the threat of sanctions causes countries to avoid behaviors that would cause them to become sanctioned.
If the goal posts are that sanctions must destroy a country's warfighting capabilities in order to "work", then yes, they almost never work.
It depends on what the goal posts are for what "work" means. I think sanctions work when their cost offsets some of the benefit received through the "undesired behavior" of the target country. They also "work" when the threat of sanctions causes countries to avoid behaviors that would cause them to become sanctioned.
If the goal posts are that sanctions must destroy a country's warfighting capabilities in order to "work", then yes, they almost never work.
>It depends on what the goal posts are for what "work" means.
Name one major example where it has worked. North Korea still making nukes, Iran only significantly slowed down its nuclear weapons program when it received sanctions relief as part of the deal that Trump ripped up.
Name one major example where it has worked. North Korea still making nukes, Iran only significantly slowed down its nuclear weapons program when it received sanctions relief as part of the deal that Trump ripped up.
It worked in South Africa - the regime held on and the supporters united behind them with the "under siege- we can do it alone" mentality until the power elites realized they were not willing to die on that hill.
Fortunately, the security-autocrat in charge had a stroke and was put in hospital - they got rid of him in an overnight transfer of power to his deputy a far more sensible leader who started negotiations for a settlement earning himself a Nobel peace prize.
Yes the general population did suffer but we had nothing more to took loose except our dignity, freedom and liberty.
The end result was worth it even if the new clowns who replaced them were not any better i.e. the economy
Fortunately, the security-autocrat in charge had a stroke and was put in hospital - they got rid of him in an overnight transfer of power to his deputy a far more sensible leader who started negotiations for a settlement earning himself a Nobel peace prize.
Yes the general population did suffer but we had nothing more to took loose except our dignity, freedom and liberty.
The end result was worth it even if the new clowns who replaced them were not any better i.e. the economy
It was far more than sanctions that brought down that apartheid regime (and to be clear, the US was against much of those measures). It was a truly international coalition, bolstered by widespread support from the general populations of the nations seeking to bring down the regime. That is nothing like what the US has engaged in.
> Except that they're proven to not work
If that's your objection, I have great news for you. They are proven to work, there's already scientific research in the case of Russia and Ukraine. You can't be bothered to inform yourself so I won't be bothered to search for a reference.
If that's your objection, I have great news for you. They are proven to work, there's already scientific research in the case of Russia and Ukraine. You can't be bothered to inform yourself so I won't be bothered to search for a reference.
Please, share your "scientific research" on how they're proven to work. Every serious analysis I have read concluded the exact opposite.
And last I saw the Russian currency was doing great, and its exports are still being imported to the west, via India and other BRICs affiliates.
> And last I saw the Russian currency was doing great
1 ruble is about 1cent lol
Like I said, I'm not sharing anything because you've already made up your mind. Ive skimmed your comment history and you're one of those "america bad" committed ideologies. Sorry, there's nothing I can do for you.
1 ruble is about 1cent lol
Like I said, I'm not sharing anything because you've already made up your mind. Ive skimmed your comment history and you're one of those "america bad" committed ideologies. Sorry, there's nothing I can do for you.
[deleted]
> And last I saw the Russian currency was doing great
Was last you checked a little over a year ago, by any chance?
Because more recently, that doesn't seem to be true.
Was last you checked a little over a year ago, by any chance?
Because more recently, that doesn't seem to be true.
You are correct, it has taken a dip recently. .011 now vs. .013 before.
The real point is that the economy is nowhere near collapsing, and by many measures doing just fine.
> You are correct, it has taken a dip recently. .011 now vs. .013 before.
You represent this ratio as 0.011 vs 0.013 to pretend it's a small difference, when in reality it's a 15% difference which is huge in forex. You're just fundamentally dishonest.
You represent this ratio as 0.011 vs 0.013 to pretend it's a small difference, when in reality it's a 15% difference which is huge in forex. You're just fundamentally dishonest.
Furthermore, you have zero evidence to attribute that 15% to sanctions. It could just have easily been a result of the US Federal Reserve’s massive increase in interest rates, which has had pronounced effects on other currencies as well. You should think about your own competence before accusing others of “dishonesty”.
Considering the country is at war and the degree of sanctions waged against it, I would say 15% is laughable. Similar GDP countries have bigger swings over the same period for more mundane reasons.
Yes. And exactly what should have happened with invasion of Iraq and Afganistan.
Brics countries are corrupt hellholes run by non-intelligent despots…that’s exactly why they won’t succeed.
Imagine South Africa that can’t even supply stable electricity to their citizens trying to rebuild the global financial order, lol. They should try rebuilding Eskom first..
Imagine South Africa that can’t even supply stable electricity to their citizens trying to rebuild the global financial order, lol. They should try rebuilding Eskom first..