Big Guy Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 (edited) BRICS is the acronym for an association of five major emerging national economies: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. The BRICS members are all developing or newly industrialized countries, but they are distinguished by their large, fast-growing economies and significant influence on regional and global affairs. This organization was originally dismissed by the West but it is becoming a more and bigger player on the international scene. Recently, they created the New Development Bank. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Development_Bank They appear to want to decouple from the American dominated International Monetary Fund (IMF) This new development bank will have a $50 million portfolio with $10 billion from each. This will create a $100 billion contingent reserve fund to replace reliance on the IMF. It is ironic that the USA has been giving money top these particular nations for years . In 2011, then US foreign aid to BRICS was; India - $3,221.0 M S. Africa - $1,397.5 M Brazil - $826.5 M China - $660.5 M For a total of over $6 billion. Is this a movement to marginalize American influence in the world financial stage? Is it having that effect? Should Canada be looking for a greater involvement into this organization? Edited October 19, 2014 by Big Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 How is Russia considered newly industrialized? And money given to those countries 13 years ago is relevant how? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted October 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 How is Russia considered newly industrialized? And money given to those countries 13 years ago is relevant how? Typo error - thanks for the heads up - I have corrected it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 First off, good thread topic! This BRICS bank was big news on CCTV 4 news channel several months back. I also noticed that it seems to be geopoliticly driven. One in SA, Africa and the rest on Asia. No Islamic countries, and for the exception of Brazil, not much religious driven either. Why is this? Clearly lots of counter western politics driving behind this new institution. Interesting to see if it will expand to other countries and where they are located and their politics. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 It will expand due to the power behind the BRICS. It is not something that can be defeated or challenged by the current 'domination' of the petrodollar. It is in fact an alternative answer to the current monopoly. And it really is a monopoly. Which contradicts the capitalist mentality of the USA and her trading partners. Which is also subsidized by the government and enforced using the military. Hussein did not have enough on his side when he attempted to open up a new oil trading market. Gaddafi did not have enough on his side when he attempted a new oil trading marking. Both were met with bombs and guns with the lie of bringing freedom and democracy to the area. This new conglomerate will be a threat and a challenge to the current system, and that could be a good thing. Allowing competition on the global market for oil. This could possibly really reduce the price of oil, hence reducing the cost of almost everything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted October 27, 2014 Report Share Posted October 27, 2014 Are they using the US $$ as legal tender or are they creating their own which would probably cause some problems for the US. No Bitcon???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 27, 2014 Report Share Posted October 27, 2014 Are they using the US $$ as legal tender or are they creating their own which would probably cause some problems for the US. No Bitcon???? NO they are not going to be using the US greenback/petrodollar. That is the whole point of this new market. And yes it would cause issues for the USA. And no one in their right mind uses Bitcoin currency for every day trading, it is still too volatile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted November 3, 2014 Report Share Posted November 3, 2014 (edited) Why is South Africa now included in this group, BRICS used to just BRIC? S.A. has experienced good but not phenomenal GDP growth like China or India, and isn't anywhere near getting a sniff of the top tier of the economic ladder globally, unlike the other BRICS. Nigeria, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Ararbia and many more have higher GDP's than S.A. Maybe it's because they're powerful regionally in Africa, but that's not saying much. Edited November 3, 2014 by Moonlight Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted November 3, 2014 Report Share Posted November 3, 2014 MG. I think you are correct on the notion South Africa is influential in Africa in some fashion. Smart move to get at least a semi major regional player in almost every region of the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted November 24, 2014 Report Share Posted November 24, 2014 http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30174650 The falling oil price is costing Russia up to $100bn a year, while Western sanctions have hit the country by $40bn, its finance minister has said. Anton Siluanov made the comments on Monday at an international financial and economic forum in Moscow. Reports on Monday suggested Russia could cut its oil production by about 300,000 barrels a day in an attempt to support the oil price. Opec members meet in Vienna this week where falling prices will be discussed. Vladimir Putin has said that Russia could suffer "catastrophic consequences" from sanctions, the falling oil price and the sliding rouble, while claiming they would have knock-on effects for other countries. "The modern world is interdependent. It's far from guaranteed that sanctions, the steep fall in oil prices and the loss of value of the national currency will lead to negative results or catastrophic consequences only for us," the Russian president told TASS, the official news agency, on Sunday. So the real reason the price is falling is to keep people within the OPEC sphere of influence. Meaning OPEC and other entities will not allow BRICS to go forth without a few attempts to take it down. This is tied into the whole reason BRICS is forming to begin with. But a convenient drop in cost means (for once) a real significant drop in fuel prices for the consumer. But as soon as competition is on the scene, OPEC decides to help keep the cost this low to prevent Russia (specifically) from making money off it's oil production and selling via the BRICS markets. Nice tactic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted November 29, 2014 Report Share Posted November 29, 2014 Why is South Africa now included in this group, BRICS used to just BRIC? S.A. has experienced good but not phenomenal GDP growth like China or India, and isn't anywhere near getting a sniff of the top tier of the economic ladder globally, unlike the other BRICS. Nigeria, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Ararbia and many more have higher GDP's than S.A. Maybe it's because they're powerful regionally in Africa, but that's not saying much. MG. I think you are correct on the notion South Africa is influential in Africa in some fashion. Smart move to get at least a semi major regional player in almost every region of the world. Close proximity to Angola and Mozambique. As well, there's a history between South Africa/ Israel/ USA. Furthermore, SA , Angola and Mozambique have tremendous potential for growth! Just because western Europe and the USA spat out and treated African countries like whores after they raped her doesn't mean squat! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted November 29, 2014 Report Share Posted November 29, 2014 So the real reason the price is falling is to keep people within the OPEC sphere of influence. Meaning OPEC and other entities will not allow BRICS to go forth without a few attempts to take it down. This is tied into the whole reason BRICS is forming to begin with. Wrong answer! http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vox.com%2F2014%2F11%2F28%2F7302827%2Foil-prices-opec&ei=KzZ5VNKsCeTGsQT3xIDQDQ&usg=AFQjCNF4RkAV8clFZAaby1XjHJRdBvXdxQ&bvm=bv.80642063,d.cWc&cad=rja Want to explain this? The power house of BRICS is clearly China, low oil prices helps China. Here's a little more. Canada and Qatar have signed deals with China to deal exclusive in the "peoples money" or RMB, Bye bye greenback! Big kick of sand in the US face from Canada. Never thought that Harper would ever do something like this! The US is the obvious loser in all of this and 2014 may go down as the year where the US really started declining fast by historians! And just a side note, don't expect the US loving anthem singing righties to comment in this thread! They're all a bunch of ignorant scaredy pants when it comes to debating BRICS vs world bank! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted November 29, 2014 Report Share Posted November 29, 2014 I've been talking about this for some time here. About the eventual move away from the US greenback/petrodollar. I look at Harper like I look at Obama, a puppet for the global masters (whoever they are). This kind of thing is done in conjunction with other countries, sometimes behind closed doors. The article does explain some things, but with regards to Iraq and Libya the article forgets to mention the reason why Iraq and Libya were thrown into turmoil that affected oil production. Those catalysts for change came from the UK and the US/Nato and in my view the UN. Even with knowing that, overall low prices help everyone. Transportation of goods becomes cheaper. I only had to put in 60$ of gas in my car the other day, typically that has run close to 80$. A twenty dollar drop is significant. When oil is cheap, everything else should become cheaper as well by default. The move away from the petrodollar has been in the works for a long time. Now we are going to see how bad the USA can get. The US is going to have to buy back all that currency that is being used to purchase oil. It would mean an instant default for the USA's ability to pay back money it owes (to who exactly?!?!?) It cannot print enough money to make up the slack, and there is no way to take that money out of the system once it is put in by the Federal Reserve. What we could see is the fastest falling of a modern nation, or of any nation/empire of the past. But it the USA will take down others with it as countries like Canada are closely tied with the USA's economy. This can and most likely will lead to more conflicts and war that will go bigger than regional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted November 29, 2014 Report Share Posted November 29, 2014 Going to have to agree with most of what you say here. It's starting to become obvious to Canadian leaders that our close solely dependent relation with the US has to be cut or we will get dragged under when the US sinks faster than it can bail. Harper and provincial leaders across Canada always seem to be going to China and other Asian countries. As more info presents itself, we'll have to share it here. Can't agree with the conflict issue. Big part of the US problem is the money waste addiction they have with the military and military cloak projects such as NASA. Many in the US recognize that it's time to go back to focusing inwards (I would hope)! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 29, 2014 Report Share Posted November 29, 2014 (edited) ...Big part of the US problem is the money waste addiction they have with the military and military cloak projects such as NASA. Many in the US recognize that it's time to go back to focusing inwards (I would hope)! Some Canadians wouldn't like that, because they use and refer to NASA data and programs as their own. They know more about NASA, NOAA, DoD, and other U.S. government programs than their own. Odd..... Edited November 29, 2014 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted November 30, 2014 Report Share Posted November 30, 2014 Some Canadians wouldn't like that, because they use and refer to NASA data and programs as their own. They know more about NASA, NOAA, DoD, and other U.S. government programs than their own. Odd..... We probably know more about them than Americans. Odd.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted November 30, 2014 Report Share Posted November 30, 2014 Going to have to agree with most of what you say here. It's starting to become obvious to Canadian leaders that our close solely dependent relation with the US has to be cut or we will get dragged under when the US sinks faster than it can bail. Harper and provincial leaders across Canada always seem to be going to China and other Asian countries. As more info presents itself, we'll have to share it here. Can't agree with the conflict issue. Big part of the US problem is the money waste addiction they have with the military and military cloak projects such as NASA. Many in the US recognize that it's time to go back to focusing inwards (I would hope)! WWWTT I had an idea years ago that Canada should have closer economic ties with Europe. But the big global financial meltdown affected everything. Telling me no market is stable and it's all a house of cards about to come down. So no matter who we try and get together with, it seems an eventual global depression will come about. BRICS hopes to avoid the crash or at least minimize it by starting their own markets. Anything tied to the Federal Reserve seems to have taken a serious dive. I don't know if this will be a solid answer to current global markets or if it will be a victim of attacks in some fashion (cyver attack most likely). I suggest watching a doc called MeltDown. A 4 part series on how rigged the financial system really is on the global scale. Price fixing, derivatives scam, sub-prime, ect ect ect. All perpetuated by the banks and when those banks were about to fail, they got the biggest welfare check ever and then paid bonuses to their CEOs. Good scam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted November 30, 2014 Report Share Posted November 30, 2014 I had an idea years ago that Canada should have closer economic ties with Europe. But the big global financial meltdown affected everything. Telling me no market is stable and it's all a house of cards about to come down. So no matter who we try and get together with, it seems an eventual global depression will come about. Don't bet on a world wide global meltdown! After the 2008/2009 banking large corporation too big to fail scam it become obvious that all these recessions were being caused by banks/corporations raping our economy and returning a handful of magic beans wrapped up in 99% hype! Also, the Chinese socialist model is extremely resilient, and as they become more independent and their domestic market explodes, many countries will follow suit. Their resilience is due to strict laws and cracking down! Operation "Fox Hunt" http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CC0QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.afr.com%2Fp%2Fspecial_reports%2Fopportunityasia%2Finside_china_fox_hunt_anti_corruption_ylcN4N1oy4H2kpiKVOZ0yO&ei=4Zp7VJK6LInbsASwg4CwCw&usg=AFQjCNFTdFyFrBs71AbEyjL-eRncjpTOVw&bvm=bv.80642063,d.cWc&cad=rja The elaborate financial scams/pyramids in the west are in no way ever tolerated in China! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 But China end up buying up some of the USA's toxic debt. I believe their system is just as unstable as the rest of the global economy. Since everything is tied together so much, that is part of the reason to move to this BRICS market. To buffer themselves against that oncoming meltdown. If other countries cannot afford to buy cheap Chinese products, what does that spell for China? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 Agreed China is part of the system, but their economy has already proven to be resilient. You're not basing your opinion on their tract record. China is shifting to strengthen their domestic market. This is their huge potential advantage that the US is terrified of on one hand, but on the other, realizes they will suffer further if they do not pounce on opportunity. Canada has recognized the fact that China will not only dominate in the next year or so, but also acknowledged that we are better off cutting some ties with the US for favoring China. Furthermore, I believe that many in the US are tired of the orgy on military spending. A strong stable China can present military security relaxing US commitments allowing partial withdrawals. I personally believe many in the west want to see a routing out of the old guard/wold bank puppeteers. BRICS is that opportunity to do so. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 (edited) Furthermore, I believe that many in the US are tired of the orgy on military spending. A strong stable China can present military security relaxing US commitments allowing partial withdrawals.The trouble is China is an expansionary power keen on annexing the territory of its neighbors. It has already stolen islands from Viet Nam and the Philippines and threatens to take over many others. But the biggest barrier to China becoming a trusted partner in global security is Taiwan. China is telling the world that it is an untrustworthy, immature bully as long as China threatens Taiwan with invasion if Taiwan chooses to declare independence. Good neighbors respect the sovereignty of its neighbors for the sake of peace. China, so far, has indicated that its nationalist ego is more important than peace and security. Edited December 2, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 The trouble is China is an expansionary power keen on annexing the territory of its neighbors. It has already stolen islands from Viet Nam and the Philippines and threatens to take over many others. But the biggest barrier to China becoming a trusted partner in global security is Taiwan. China is telling the world that it is an untrustworthy, immature bully as long as China threatens Taiwan with invasion if Taiwan chooses to declare independence. Good neighbors respect the sovereignty of its neighbors for the sake of peace. China, so far, has indicated that its nationalist ego is more important than peace and security. Did the west respect Iraq's sovereignty? How about Libya? Syria? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 (edited) Did the west respect Iraq's sovereignty? How about Libya? Syria?Apples and Oranges. Western intervention is never to annex all or part of country. It is only to stop/prevent violence and if troops are even sent it they are expected to leave as soon as possible and leave control of the country in the hands of the people who live there. China, like Russia, just want to grab territory and keep it for themselves. Edited December 2, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 Apples and Oranges. Western intervention is never to annex all or part of country. It is only to stop/prevent violence and if troops are even sent it they are expected to leave as soon as possible and leave control of the country in the hands of the people who live there. China, like Russia, just want to grab territory and keep it for themselves. Plunking down one of the largest military bases in Iraq kind of tells me otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 But what is the difference from economically/politically owning a country compared to military force take over? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.