5 ms·

In theory it can be done by creating a new currency, with no capital controls.

by xvilka 3y ago

nradov 3y ago
No, that can't be done without some sort of political monetary union. India and China will never agree to join the same monetary union. Their interests aren't aligned. Russia has to maintain good relations with both India and China, and can't afford to piss off either one. And South Africa is rapidly collapsing into a failed state with a dysfunctional economy; lately they can't even keep the lights on. It's all just talk, a total joke.
- dotnet00 3y ago
  That's the funny thing about all the BRICS bluster, so many of the countries in (or soon to be in) the "group" either hate each other, are barely functioning or are just direct competitors in general. It's amazing anyone thinks they'll do anything that requires cooperation and mutual trust beyond making empty promises.
  - somenameforme 3y ago
    There were centuries of organizations that tried to prevent war by trust and cooperation. Before the UN was the League of Nations, before the LoN was the Concert of Europe and there were undoubtedly countless efforts prior. But they all failed completely abysmally. Do you know the one thing that actually worked? Countries having nuclear weapons. Suddenly there was a strong self-interest in avoiding war, and "real" war essentially disappeared - at least between nuclear powers. And I think that's generally true in everything, everywhere. The reason you can walk down the street safely in most places is not because of an implicit agreement of cooperation, but simply because we're all working in our best interest. You don't even consider messing with other people, because you'd just end up in prison for negligible gains. And indeed as soon as that threat and imminence of harsh consequence disappears, it suddenly becomes much less safe to walk down those streets. BRICS is not united in some ideological conformity, but instead in self interest. They don't want to be dominated by a single hegemon. And I think this form of cooperation based solely on self interest - is far more likely to persist and yield fruitful results. I also expect this is why agreements will, and should, take much longer. Instead of just bum-rushing some virtue filled "Treaty of Whatever" that'll get scrapped by any participating government when it becomes inconvenient, they want to ensure there are implicit self-interest motivated systems driving cooperation through any foreseeable circumstance.
    - dotnet00 3y ago
      I disagree, China, Russia and India for instance are not at risk of being dominated by the US. All 3 individually had and even still have the ability to have a similar status as the EU. Their primary complaint is that they wish they were hegemons, except to them hegemony means being far more of an asshole to those you dominate than the US's terms. Thus their need to try to force the issue rather than naturally ending up in that position. This is also an issue India and China would conflict on, as being neighbors, they seek to be hegemons over the same region. They're talking about moving past the USD, but none of them have the trust and general guarantees it has had and none of them are going to risk putting their trade in a currency that would be dependent on the whims of their direct competitors. I also disagree with your premise that this is comparable to nuclear deterrence. While nukes have been a deterrent to conflict between the US and USSR, Europe and USSR and perhaps also between India and China, they haven't really been a large factor at all in Europe and in Africa. I think they've been comparatively peaceful not because of nukes, but because European countries were forced to come to terms with the futility of trying to be hegemons over each other over both world wars, with the second one having finally been brutal enough to make them give that up. Now as WW2 fades from living memory, they remain peaceful due to deep integration between cultures that makes it difficult for them to "other" another enough to justify war.
      - somenameforme 3y ago
        Here's a couple of great links I might recommend. This [1] is about US involvement in regime change including "at least 81 overt and covert known interventions in foreign elections during the period 1946–2000" and "64 covert and six overt attempts at regime change during the Cold War." And here [2] is a list of the countries we've invaded which, depending on how exactly you measure it, starts in the 60+ range. The world order as you know it today is not even remotely "natural." And this is a fundamental component to try to appreciate the geopolitical relations between countries, as well as how other nations are going to perceive the various threats of the world. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r... [2] - https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/how-many-countries-has-the-us-invaded https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/how-many-...

In theory it can be done by creating a new currency, with no capital controls.

by xvilka 3y ago

In theory it can be done by creating a new currency, with no capital controls.

No, that can't be done without some sort of political monetary union. India and China will never agree to join the same monetary union. Their interests aren't aligned. Russia has to maintain good relations with both India and China, and can't afford to piss off either one. And South Africa is rapidly collapsing into a failed state with a dysfunctional economy; lately they can't even keep the lights on. It's all just talk, a total joke.

dotnet00 3y ago
That's the funny thing about all the BRICS bluster, so many of the countries in (or soon to be in) the "group" either hate each other, are barely functioning or are just direct competitors in general. It's amazing anyone thinks they'll do anything that requires cooperation and mutual trust beyond making empty promises.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  There were centuries of organizations that tried to prevent war by trust and cooperation. Before the UN was the League of Nations, before the LoN was the Concert of Europe and there were undoubtedly countless efforts prior. But they all failed completely abysmally. Do you know the one thing that actually worked? Countries having nuclear weapons. Suddenly there was a strong self-interest in avoiding war, and "real" war essentially disappeared - at least between nuclear powers. And I think that's generally true in everything, everywhere. The reason you can walk down the street safely in most places is not because of an implicit agreement of cooperation, but simply because we're all working in our best interest. You don't even consider messing with other people, because you'd just end up in prison for negligible gains. And indeed as soon as that threat and imminence of harsh consequence disappears, it suddenly becomes much less safe to walk down those streets. BRICS is not united in some ideological conformity, but instead in self interest. They don't want to be dominated by a single hegemon. And I think this form of cooperation based solely on self interest - is far more likely to persist and yield fruitful results. I also expect this is why agreements will, and should, take much longer. Instead of just bum-rushing some virtue filled "Treaty of Whatever" that'll get scrapped by any participating government when it becomes inconvenient, they want to ensure there are implicit self-interest motivated systems driving cooperation through any foreseeable circumstance.
  - dotnet00 3y ago
    I disagree, China, Russia and India for instance are not at risk of being dominated by the US. All 3 individually had and even still have the ability to have a similar status as the EU. Their primary complaint is that they wish they were hegemons, except to them hegemony means being far more of an asshole to those you dominate than the US's terms. Thus their need to try to force the issue rather than naturally ending up in that position. This is also an issue India and China would conflict on, as being neighbors, they seek to be hegemons over the same region. They're talking about moving past the USD, but none of them have the trust and general guarantees it has had and none of them are going to risk putting their trade in a currency that would be dependent on the whims of their direct competitors. I also disagree with your premise that this is comparable to nuclear deterrence. While nukes have been a deterrent to conflict between the US and USSR, Europe and USSR and perhaps also between India and China, they haven't really been a large factor at all in Europe and in Africa. I think they've been comparatively peaceful not because of nukes, but because European countries were forced to come to terms with the futility of trying to be hegemons over each other over both world wars, with the second one having finally been brutal enough to make them give that up. Now as WW2 fades from living memory, they remain peaceful due to deep integration between cultures that makes it difficult for them to "other" another enough to justify war.
    - somenameforme 3y ago
      Here's a couple of great links I might recommend. This [1] is about US involvement in regime change including "at least 81 overt and covert known interventions in foreign elections during the period 1946–2000" and "64 covert and six overt attempts at regime change during the Cold War." And here [2] is a list of the countries we've invaded which, depending on how exactly you measure it, starts in the 60+ range. The world order as you know it today is not even remotely "natural." And this is a fundamental component to try to appreciate the geopolitical relations between countries, as well as how other nations are going to perceive the various threats of the world. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r... [2] - https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/how-many-countries-has-the-us-invaded https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/how-many-...