BRICS Megathread

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa. Seeing as these guys want to take on the world, why not chronicle their adventures?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BRICS welcomes new members in push to reshuffle world order​


  • Summary
  • Bloc adds Saudi Arabia, Iran, Ethiopia, Egypt, Argentina and UAE
  • Expansion could lend global clout to BRICS
  • Group leaves door open to further expansion
JOHANNESBURG, Aug 24 (Reuters) - The BRICS bloc of developing nations agreed on Thursday to admit Saudi Arabia, Iran, Ethiopia, Egypt, Argentina and the United Arab Emirates in a move aimed at accelerating its push to reshuffle a world order it sees as outdated.

In deciding in favour of an expansion - the bloc's first in 13 years - BRICS leaders left the door open to future enlargement as dozens more countries voiced interest in joining a grouping they hope can level the global playing field.



The expansion adds economic heft to BRICS, whose current members are China, the world's second largest economy, as well as Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa. It could also amplify its declared ambition to become a champion of the Global South.

But long-standing tensions could linger between members who want to forge the grouping into a counterweight to the West - notably China, Russia and now Iran - and those that continue to nurture close ties to the United States and Europe.


"This membership expansion is historic," Chinese President Xi Jinping, the bloc's most stalwart proponent of enlargement, said. "It shows the determination of BRICS countries for unity and cooperation with the broader developing countries."

Originally an acronym coined by Goldman Sachs chief economist Jim O'Neill in 2001, the bloc was founded as an informal four-nation club in 2009 and added South Africa a year later in its only previous expansion.



The six new candidates will formally become members on Jan. 1, 2024, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa said when he named the countries during a three-day leaders' summit he is hosting in Johannesburg.

"BRICS has embarked on a new chapter in its effort to build a world that is fair, a world that is just, a world that is also inclusive and prosperous," Ramaphosa said.

"We have consensus on the first phase of this expansion process and other phases will follow."


FRIENDS AND ALLIES LEAD CANDIDATES​

The countries invited to join reflect individual BRICS members' desires to bring allies into the club.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva had vocally lobbied for neighbour Argentina's inclusion while Egypt has close commercial ties with Russia and India.

The entry of oil powers Saudi Arabia and UAE highlights their drift away from the United States' orbit and ambition to become global heavyweights in their own right.

Russia and Iran have found common cause in their shared struggle against U.S.-led sanctions and diplomatic isolation, with their economic ties deepening in the wake of Moscow's invasion of Ukraine.

"BRICS is not competing with anyone," Russia's Vladimir Putin, who is attending the summit remotely due to an international warrant for alleged war crimes, said on Thursday.




"But it's also obvious that this process of the emerging of a new world order still has fierce opponents."

Iran's President Ebrahim Raisi celebrated his country's BRICS invitation with a swipe at Washington, saying on Iranian television network Al Alam that the expansion "shows that the unilateral approach is on the way to decay".

Beijing is close to Ethiopia and the country's inclusion also speaks to South Africa's desire to amplify Africa's voice in global affairs.

LOFTY AMBITIONS, LITTLE RESULTS​

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres attended Thursday's expansion announcement, reflecting the bloc's growing influence. He echoed BRICS' longstanding calls for reforms of the U.N. Security Council, International Monetary Fund and World Bank.

"Today's global governance structures reflect yesterday's world," he said. "For multilateral institutions to remain truly universal, they must reform to reflect today's power and economic realities."

BRICS countries have economies that are vastly different in scale and governments with often divergent foreign policy goals, a complicating factor for the bloc's consensus decision-making model.

Though home to about 40% of the world's population and a quarter of global gross domestic product, internal divisions have long hobbled BRICS ambitions of becoming a major player on the world stage.

It has long been criticised for failing to live up to its grand ambitions.

The regularly repeated desire of its member states to wean themselves off the dollar, for example, has never materialised. And its most concrete achievement, the New Development Bank, is now struggling in the face of sanctions against founding shareholder Russia.

Even as BRICS leaders this week weighed expanding the group - a move every one of them publicly supported - divisions surfaced over how much and how quickly.

Last-minute deliberations over entry criteria and which countries to invite to join extended late into Wednesday evening.

Bloc heavyweight China has long called for an expansion of BRICS as it seeks to challenge Western dominance, a strategy shared by Russia.

Other BRICS members support fostering the creation of a multi-polar global order. But Brazil and India have both also been forging closer ties with the West.

Brazil's Lula has rejected the idea that the bloc should seek to rival the United States and Group of Seven wealthy economies. However, as he departed South Africa on Thursday, he said he saw no contradiction in bringing in Iran - a historical arch-foe of Washington - if it advanced the cause of the developing world.

"We can't deny the geopolitical importance of Iran and other countries that will join BRICS. ... What matters is not the person who governs but the importance of the country."


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




 
An axis lacking unity isn’t anything threatening. I’ll believe BRICS to be more of an actual threat when the I and C part actually put aside differences and stop their border disputes.
Indian and China won't because they have extremely deep territorial issues and China backs India's main local threat.


They should remove South Africa, it's a failed state at this point and is in an unrecoverable situation.
Not quite but it'll devolve more into an African Venezuela (minerals instead of oil) that'll have the productive parts policed by Wagner types and the rest will decay into Zimbabwe 2.0

Ethiopia also has serious issues as does Egypt.

Argentina is in near free fall.

The other members are Petro states like the UAE
A legitimate gold-backed currency is the opposite of funny money.
........ Yeah, almost non viable at 21st century trade volumes. Gold prices also fluctuate and gold back currencies have to have enough gold on hand to physical exchange a unit of currency for it's equivalent value in gold.
 
Only China and maybe Russia and Saudi Arabia will win something.

Lula gets to pretend he matters on the geopolitical stage and Chairman Xi gets to colonize Africa and South America.
 
A legitimate gold-backed currency is the opposite of funny money.
Besides the nearly unarguable fact that the countries will lie about their gold storage, the whole gold backed currency always looked like a meme to me. Like what's the point? If the government is corrupt enough to print infinite money, it's corrupt enough to lie about the amount of gold. The gold itself stifles growth by being limited, and a future discovery of a massive mine can collapse the world economy. You can just about replace the gold with any natural resource that will benefit the country printing the money.
 
A legitimate gold-backed currency is the opposite of funny money.
So uh... when FDR signed Executive Order 6102 fucking over private gold owners and the Gold Reserve Act revaluing the dollar at $35 per troy ounce instead of $20.67 that wasn't the government playing financial games with the currency?
Besides the nearly unarguable fact that the countries will lie about their gold storage, the whole gold backed currency always looked like a meme to me. Like what's the point? If the government is corrupt enough to print infinite money, it's corrupt enough to lie about the amount of gold. The gold itself stifles growth by being limited, and a future discovery of a massive mine can collapse the world economy. You can just about replace the gold with any natural resource that will benefit the country printing the money.
See above. The government can immediately devalue the currency by decree in a gold-backed economic system if it so chooses.
 
Well at least I got some maps .

IMG_1776.jpeg

IMG_1777.jpeg


IMG_1778.jpeg

IMG_1779.jpeg
 
I don't know why anyone is surprised

A lot and I mean a lot of countries are sick of being coerced by the US's SWIFT system. The US uses it as a cudgel to ensure their interests are maintained all over the world and many leaders are sick of it but have no choice but to obey or risk "issues" clearing money. It's a gun pointed at the financial heart of the world.

So naturally the countries that get shit on, mainly the Arabs, want a way out and if BRICS takes off we will see the world split into two factions again.

If it takes off, without the US's massive consumer base and monetary supply getting BRICS to actually work will be a large undertaking. And they can't count on China as their economy is totally fucked and no one wants to see the Chinks take control, I think eveyone will look to Russia rather then China but who knows.
 
I don't know why anyone is surprised

A lot and I mean a lot of countries are sick of being coerced by the US's SWIFT system. The US uses it as a cudgel to ensure their interests are maintained all over the world and many leaders are sick of it but have no choice but to obey or risk "issues" clearing money. It's a gun pointed at the financial heart of the world.

So naturally the countries that get shit on, mainly the Arabs, want a way out and if BRICS takes off we will see the world split into two factions again.

If it takes off, without the US's massive consumer base and monetary supply getting BRICS to actually work will be a large undertaking. And they can't count on China as their economy is totally fucked and no one wants to see the Chinks take control, I think eveyone will look to Russia rather then China but who knows.
Do not underestimate the damage that this administration has done internationally to relations even with historically close allies.
Even saudi-arabia now offering to sell their oil in non-USD currencies. SA refusing to take calls from Biden and cosying up with china.
That entire concept would have gotten you laughed out of the room just 5 years ago.
But here we are and 70 years of close allyship with saudi arabia just thrown away, just like that, because the chief just can not keep his mouth shut.

Do not underestimate the damage done and how unreliable these countries now think the US is. Maybe in their calculations, with all its flaws China might be a more reliable partner to ally up with than the US.
And biden did this in just two years. If god is willing we will get 6 more years of Biden. What will that lead to? Turkey and Pakistan leaving NATO and joining brics, maybe military alliance with china?

Eveything is really fucked up and it happened in just two and a half years. All the goodwill and trust build over the last 70 years just destroyed because Biden is demented and surrounded with people who thinks the most pressing geopolitical issue right now is that saudi arabia and other countries should embrace homosexuality.
 
Last edited:
Historical relationships with strategic allies who could really easily fuck us over bigly is all well and good but have you considered the vital importance of homosex, sterilizing confused kids, exporting a glorified gaia focused death cult, and nigger worship?
 
Unfortunately 350k tons of gold, as much as it's worth at current prices (around $1.4 trln) is only a tiny fraction of the GDP of these countries. You need multiple times' GDP for the money supply.

And of course bringing that much gold onto the market would cause prices to collapse as there's no excess demand for it in the current market. Part of the problem with a gold standard is it's really not that valuable for industrial or household uses, it's mostly just valuable for its aesthetic properties and use in jewelry.

It's easy to exchange but what exactly can someone do with a gold bar besides exchange it again for other goods and services?

Backing a currency with long-term, valuable commodities like oil, uranium ore or bauxite would make a lot more sense. And backing them with agricultural commodities would be really interesting, I imagine most people in developing countries would readily accept a currency knowing they could redeem it for their next meal at the same price no matter where.
 
Backing a currency with long-term, valuable commodities like oil, uranium ore or bauxite would make a lot more sense. And backing them with agricultural commodities would be really interesting, I imagine most people in developing countries would readily accept a currency knowing they could redeem it for their next meal at the same price no matter where.

General question: would backing a currency onto a basket of commodities (say a mix of oil, wheat, gold, and steel) be feisable? Seems to me like it'd make it far more stable and less impacted by market shocks than a single commodity would. My economics credentials are pretty healthcare focused so I always wondered about this possibility.
 
Why does this tard want to break apart and dismantle every single country he doesn't like? That is his answer to any issue? Break some random country apart to solve the issue?
It seems like OCD behavior. Does this guy need his own thread?
If you ask some pro Russia folks in the Russia/Ukraine conflict, some feel that it’d be easier for the US to take those places and make them American puppet states, which is why Russia has to win apparently.
 
General question: would backing a currency onto a basket of commodities (say a mix of oil, wheat, gold, and steel) be feisable? Seems to me like it'd make it far more stable and less impacted by market shocks than a single commodity would. My economics credentials are pretty healthcare focused so I always wondered about this possibility.
I focus on healthcare too, interestingly enough! It's honestly a good question.

The big challenge with a convertible-on-demand currency is you have to keep enough of the commodities stored on hand so people can redeem their paper money for the products it's backed by. More valuable ones like oil are easier to use for this vs. something like wheat or steel but you still run into problems. Steel is cheap so redeeming your money for any quantity of it would leave you with a lot of metal you can't use.

Oil and its products break down under normal conditions after a short time (this is why you put Stabil in the gas tank if you're not using something for a while). It would also be a remarkable scientific achievement if someone could build a home refinery to turn a barrel of crude oil into useful products.

Wheat can be stored for a long time under good conditions but it will still suffer losses in storage. Raw grain is kind of useless unless you can take it to a mill to grind into flour or do it yourself, which is again a pain in either case and something most people don't want to do. I also think it would be hard to buy things with a sack full of grain.

A gold bar can at least be carried from place to place, but again...what is it exactly worth vs. a piece of paper?
 
Back
Top Bottom