> 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
It’s a few hundred character Tweet that has been reproduced fully. You don’t even need to know the author to assess the contents of the tweet.
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.
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.)
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.