> Pretty straightforward really. You combine Brazil's history of monetary stability, with Russia's respect for property rights, India's domestic tranquility, China's financial transparency, and South Africa's investment opportunities - and hey presto, you've got a new global money
Frum took an accurate view IMHO.
Unless you think that property rights (and window incidents) in Russia are not a problem, or that China already has good transparency in their economy… Do you think those things?
Again, which claim is incorrect?
> Brazil's history of monetary stability
Does Brazil have a history of monetary stability?
> Russia's respect for property rights
Does Russia have respect for property rights?
> India's domestic tranquility
Is India’s domestic affairs tranquil?
> China's financial transparency
Are Chinese finances transparent?
> South Africa's investment opportunities
Does South Africa have great investment opportunities?
One could argue much of this really matters when it comes to economic growth for individual countries. But all these properties certainly matter when it comes to forming an economic alliance across nations.
Which is why BRICS has been almost completely worthless and to the extent these countries have had any effect together it’s through bilateral agreements.
The individual countries should be taken seriously. Which western countries finally have started doing over the last couple of years. The watershed moment was Russia’s attack on Ukraine. It finally dispensed with the neocon idea that they could spread free market democracies in Russia and China by simply trading with them.
One can also take the countries seriously but the 'BRICS project' not-seriously.
It does, now that its in BRICS.
>Does Russia have respect for property rights?
It does, now that its in BRICS. (ahem sanctions are a crime against humanity, yo.)
>Are India’s domestic affairs tranquil?
They certainly will get better, now that they're in BRICS and their people stand to gain a lot from the economic growth that involves, outside of the Western control that has put India in the position its in, in the first place.
>Are Chinese finances transparent?
Well, ask the other BRICS members: they are the ones who can say, definitely, yes. To Americans? No, of course not.
>Does South Africa have great investment opportunities?
They certainly do, now that they're in BRICS.
>Which is why BRICS has been almost completely worthless ..
.. to the Western Empire.
We can do it for America, too: a union with Mississippi’s economy, California’s taxes, Alabama’s services and Kansas’s natural beauty.
This form is good for jokes but bad for analysis. BRICS could have worked if its members agreed on anything. They don’t, and there are better multilateral forums that don’t rely on the West that could be constructed in its place. (Starting with continental organisation.)
That doesn't mean BRICS has achieved lots. It does mean that his snide comment has no merit with respect to saying anything about BRICS whatsoever.
I guess one simply needs to live on the ground floor or not have any windows in their high-rise apartment:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspicious_deaths_of_notable_R...
BRICS is a solution, not a problem. Its a solution to the 'situations' listed, but its also a solution to the fact that the USA has weaponized the petrodollar while committing heinous atrocities across the landscape.
When it snows, all you see is a sea of snow everywhere, and in the spring it's a sea of prairie grass in the rural areas.
The cities are like Chicago and San Francisco had a baby in terms of the architecture and layout.
Our taxes are also higher than California if you are going by percentage (for property taxes and sales taxes, but not income taxes, except for food). California is "okay" I guess. They could do some tax reform, but it's a large state with some large programs and initiatives, so considering that, it's not bad. Additionally, Alabama has less than stellar in person services, but great online services. Mississippi is often troped as having not the greatest economy, but their economy is based on oil, and chemical processing, and fishing. They are also located in a hurricane zone. That means that they get hit hard all the time, and have to keep rebuilding infrastructure. That's not easy. They also get hit economically every time there is a chemical spill or an oil spill, cause the plant will shut down, and they cannot fish there either. We should probably open datacenters there.