Gerrard59:


I really want to see the social experiment's outcome in the next decade. Unlike developed countries where work dey and people earn good money, I want to see the result of extreme feminism in poor countries.

Your "extreme" is prejudiced biased, and an attempt to demonise.

Feminism increases the worker pool, and gives employers more choice. Already, feminism has ensured more girls than boys get educated, and women are more desirable employees than boys.

If you boys don't evolve you'll be left far behind.

budaatum:


You "extreme" is prejudiced biased, and an attempt to demonise.

Feminism increases the worker pool, and gives employers more choice. Already, feminism has ensured more girls than boys get educated, and women are more desirable employees than boys.

If you boys don't evolve you'll be left far behind.

It is not a thread on feminism, so I won't go further. Just to state that, I was once very pro-feminist during my early days on Nairaland. Also, I said in poor countries. Extreme feminism has generated low birth rates in a traditional society such as South Korea, but that is a wealthy country. Does feminism has its benefits? Yes.

I really don't want to delve into it as it will derail this thread.

pansophist:


I think expansion should go first, otherwise, the US-led West will play a fast one by playing the role of a spoiler, by, for example, bringing potential countries into its sphere of influence.

You make a very valid point. The truism "delay is dangerous" may apply here.

Can't discount that.

You can see it in India. Just within the past few months, India is gradually becoming the black sheep of Brics. Also, India is one leg in, one leg out. They are a part of Quad, which is against the unspoken spirit of the Brics.

You can't be in a military alliance with the West such as the Quad, created specifically for aggression against China, then also be in an economic alliance such as BRICS, with the same China.

In a time where all Brics members are discussing issues about the new currency, only India is disputing it and working against it. Washington just gave Modi a red-carpet invite, where issues that undermine Brics were discussed.

And India seems to be pursuing strategic ambiguity, but in reality, it's a beech that cant just dedicate itself to one side and contribute to moving humanity forward, even after all what they have suffered in the hands of the west.

On India, I see it differently.

India is the OG heavyweight of the Non-Aligned Movement. You might say we are past having fence-sitters. But the historicity is unequivocal.

In addition, there is a deeper rationale for their ambiguity. Access to privileged technology.

China + Russia and the US are a match on most counts. But the US and its diverse network of vassals maintain a vise-grip stranglehold on key technologies. These technologies have to be transferred willingly or extracted by clandestine means.

Unfortunately, that door has been shut for China and Russia. They have to spend more time and resources basically reinventing the wheel. When particularly in China's case, only a few years ago they could dangle access to the Chinese market and Western companies will fall over themselves and move mountains to share technologies and establish joint ventures.

It jives with Pareto's principle. 80% is easy to get. The top 20% are harder and the West still enjoys a commanding lead.

For instance, the machine to manufacture the most advanced chips can only be made by ASML. A Dutch company that America insisted be partly domiciled in the US. Each machine costs $200m. There are grades of advanced materials that you can only source from Western countries.

Russia has its hands full trying to maintain its strategic leads in carefully nitpicked sectors and sustaining the economy of Eurasia / Central Asia to match the wider range of innovation from the G7. It's different for China. For every sector they hack brilliantly like battery technology, there is at least one more where initial successes tapered off and they have to rely on tech transfers.

India still has an in with the West. And are even further behind than China and Russia. During Modi's recent trip, the US signed off on jet engine tech transfer. General Electric to Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. To put that in perspective, China's homegrown COMAC C919 passenger jet will use a GE's jet engine designed from scratch. General Electric, Pratt & Whitney (owned by Raytheon), Rolls Royce have reams of IP that'll take decades to independently develop. That is one niche industry with an outsized economic impact. There are others.

So if Russia and China are in direct confrontation with the West, a premature development as they both would have loved to match and exceed the West in more sectors before any showdown; then it may be ill-advised to get India and Brazil to do the same.

Israel for instance has secretly handed over sensitive Western IPs to China to curry political favor. They still maintain strategic ties with Russia for obvious reasons. The Global South still needs access to Western tech to scale the middle income trap.

If it wasn't for advanced tech, the GDP per capita in the top Second World countries will be in the mid five figures. We've already mastered most foundational and mid-level tech. Virtually all the appliances in our homes can be manufactured in the Global South. There's virtually no infrastructure that's beyond the Global South from skyscrapers to high-speed trains to HVDC power lines. But it is those special areas like the life sciences that the West withholds and gatekeeps. It is the high value of these products and services that enable them to work same or less hours and get paid several multiples more. As well as pry our brightest and ambitious minds with full-bore scholarships + generous compensation to apply ourselves and be in the company of exceptional peers.

In light of this, it makes sense for India to retain a direct line to Washington. Besides the Middle East, no region has been as rewarding for India as the West. And let's not forget, China toed this path too. They pragmatically disengaged from the Soviets to secure the bag from the West and decades later are now chummy with Russia and declaring a "no limits" friendship.

But here is the important tidbit, we have to be sure this is a carefully-orchestrated charade. India shouldn't simply repeat the mistakes of the past and slyly hobble a budding global alliance. BRICS is not NAM. However, the coordination should occur behind the scenes in dim backrooms away from the cameras and symposiums. If that were happening, we'll see some byproducts of these discussions; which in fairness I'm not seeing a lot of.

And I think China and India share equal responsibility. China more so. The Chinese have to take the lead on this because I'm sorry to say but the Indians are not renowned for their long-term strategic planning. A lot of questions that the Chinese and Russians answered long before the US became a nation are still unresolved for the Indians.

But what I see is a lot of coasting. Not enough strategic cooperation.

The Philippines is another example. Just last year Marcos succeeded Duterte as the president of The Philippines, he made a 180-degree U-turn to the policy of the previous administration. It is not news that the US played a dirty hand to help him win the election.

Duterte was pro-China/Russia, against hegemony, and will bring The Philippines into Brics. He was hated by the West, but isn't it expected? Lack of administrative consistency is a bug in democracies.

Now a military base has been designated to be built in the Philippines to deter China, meanwhile with Duterte, it would be an economic partnership with China. The US operates in the dark, and timing is one of the ways to counter the US.

The Philippines like much of the Global South will discard principles for a quick buck. If the US comes to Nigeria with a $50B 3-year offer, we'll put every Chinese migrant in the country on a one-way voyage on one of the many empty container ships that depart our shores every week.

This is why I said I favored deeper integration before expansion. Much of the Global South does not have much to offer BRICS at the moment. The bids to join are primarily opportunistic plays. Saudi Arabia is itching to join because the West is going green. Every country in Africa wants cheap loans they don't expect to repay (they'd go back to plead for debt forgiveness).

But when they join, they will all have requests and objections. And like India will be trying to practice strategic ambiguity and stalling plans because they still want Western FDI and stack the fugazi fiat of the Golden Billion.

And there are loads and loads of opportunities for bi-directional collaborations and co-operations within BRICS. Brazil has an aircraft manufacturer that has cornered the lion share of the global regional jet market. If you've flown domestically in Nigeria, odds are you've flown in one of their jets. Embraer. Embraer, Huawei, Tata should be to BRICS what the likes of Boeing/Airbus, Volkswagen, and LVMH are to the West.

Of the top 10 exporting countries, China is #1. India is #10. #2 and #9 are all Western-aligned. UK exports $1T worth of goods annually. 65% is to the EU and the US. I know it's too early to call for a tightly-woven interdependency of this nature, but it is illustrative of the unrealized potential.

So I think that Brics should evolve to be more sophisticated like the EU, playing a key role in both economic and military communities of nations regardless of political and geographical affiliations.

Then clear-cut policies should be enacted to integrate new members, of which such policies would be bed rocked on being part of a bloc, and no servings of two masters, like India.

If this is achieved, then the world will fully be undisputably multipolar, then BRICS would be a formidable bloc. Their once-in-a-year summit doesn't come off as serious to me, it is too slow in real actions.

Agree wholeheartedly.

Unfortunately, it seems that the BRICS is still something of a social club.

They all just seem content to want to apply as much soft pressure to get the US to fall under its own weight and due to self-sabotage, then swoop in for the spoils. This is not a thrilling strategy.

The experience we'll gain from taking the path you elegantly described is far more invaluable and useful.

A multipolar world is inevitable anyway. So how we get there may not matter all that much in the end.

-Lord

budaatum:

There isn't "so much money to be made in our country and other African countries" because our purchasing power is low. And our purchasing power is low because our productivity is low. And our productivity is low because we are not organised.

Fix these things and even we will make money amongst our African selves.

Thanks so much for sharing this nuggets.

Can we improve our productivity and be better organised, without free basic healthcare and education for all

seguno2:


Thanks so much for sharing this nuggets.

Can we improve our productivity and be better organised, without free basic healthcare and education for all

Free anything means low wages, and low wages means low productivity and low quality, as those jobs will attract those who can't earn more in better jobs.

Best is, charge for healthcare and education so more can be available to invest in health and education and attract better employees who provide more than basic. With better education, productivity will increase.

Gerrard59:


It is not a thread on feminism, so I won't go further. Just to state that, I was once very pro-feminist during my early days on Nairaland. Also, I said in poor countries. Extreme feminism has generated low birth rates in a traditional society such as South Korea, but that is a wealthy country. Does feminism has its benefits? Yes.

I really don't want to delve into it as it will derail this thread.

So are you now antifeminist, and want to keep women where men designed for women?

@pansophist and all:

Saudi Arabia, Iran, UAE, Egypt, Argentina, Ethiopia are BRICS new members.

Hmm!

-Lord

LordAdam, I read your Brazil, Russia, India, etc, as if you are speaking of one single minded entity. Like there is one single person making decisions for these countrys, when in my mind I see the internal political tussle to determine who decides who they align with.

Take Nigeria alone. Russia has scuppered the Trans-Saharan Gas Pipeline from Warri to Europe that some have wanted built and some haven't. Russia definitely didn't want it built, and also had to retaliate for Nord Stream. On the other side are T-SGP investors going way back to the 70s in expectation of reaping trillions of dollars selling gas to Europe. Either side needs their supporter at the top, and while Nigeria democratically chose its, Niger has decided to choose its with a Russian assisted coup, which some say us resisting is a war against Northern Nigeria. All countrys are internally conflicted about their alignments, is my point, with some of us Nigerians being anti or pro various alignments.

But as I said, "I read", and not, that is what you wrote. So, just correcting my own ignorance I suppose, and informing you of it.

LordAdam16:
@pansophist and all:

Saudi Arabia, Iran, UAE, Egypt, Argentina, Ethiopia are BRICS new members.

Hmm!

-Lord

I like the countries that were invited to join. The list seems strategic, as they are independent in the truest sense of Independence.

According to Wikipedia, Nigeria has applied to join BRICS, I don't know how true it is. But I doubt Nigeria will join anytime soon, because Nigeria seems like a puppet to me.

In Africa for example, west Africa is the least organised, developed and independent region. How can you explain that in the presence of ECOWAS, France still manipulate the francophone counries?

Libya borders ECOWAS via Niger, but the political situation of the ECOWAS community is so weak, that NATO can destroy Libya without any repercussion from the bloc.

See how ECOWAS is barking at the instruction of the West to invade Niger, such speed would be expected from the bloc to deal with poverty, insurgency, corruption, regional integration, from transportation to economy etc.

France still control the currencies, economy and resources of Francophone countries, meanwhile, ECOWAS sees no reason to fight for the freedom of its member states.

Nigeria that should lead is so deeply corrupted and messed up, that the West African region has officially become the most messed up region on Africa.

The most developed region in Africa is the North, followed by the South, then the east then the West. And in the West, if you minus Ghana, ivory Coast and Nigeria, the region is a largely in a pitiable condition.

Right now, you'll always come across videos of other African States criticizing western policies across the continent, but I hardly come across such from Nigerian leaders. Nigeria leaders are gatekeepers of Western hegemony in the region.

That's the only reasonable conclusion I can reach. And that's sad. We really have a bleak future and a bloody struggle ahead.

pansophist:


I like the countries that were invited to join. The list seems strategic, as they are independent in the truest sense of Independence.

According to Wikipedia, Nigeria has applied to join BRICS, I don't know how true it is. But I doubt Nigeria will join anytime soon, because Nigeria seems like a puppet to me.

In Africa for example, west Africa is the least organised, developed and independent region. How can you explain that in the presence of ECOWAS, France still manipulate the francophone counries?

Libya borders ECOWAS via Niger, but the political situation of the ECOWAS community is so weak, that NATO can destroy Libya without any repercussion from the bloc.

See how ECOWAS is barking at the instruction of the West to invade Niger, such speed would be expected from the bloc to deal with poverty, insurgency, corruption, regional integration, from transportation to economy etc.

France still control the currencies, economy and resources of Francophone countries, meanwhile, ECOWAS sees no reason to fight for the freedom of its member states.

Nigeria that should lead is so deeply corrupted and messed up, that the West African region has officially become the most messed up region on Africa.

The most developed region in Africa is the North, followed by the South, then the east then the West. And in the West, if you minus Ghana, ivory Coast and Nigeria, the region is a largely in a pitiable condition.

Right now, you'll always come across videos of other African States criticizing western policies across the continent, but I hardly come across such from Nigerian leaders. Nigeria leaders are gatekeepers of Western hegemony in the region.

That's the only reasonable conclusion I can reach. And that's sad. We really have a bleak future and a bloody struggle ahead.

You sabi.

budaatum:
LordAdam, I read your Brazil, Russia, India, etc, as if you are speaking of one single minded entity. Like there is one single person making decisions for these countrys, when in my mind I see the internal political tussle to determine who decides who they align with.

Take Nigeria alone. Russia has scuppered the Trans-Saharan Gas Pipeline from Warri to Europe that some have wanted built and some haven't. Russia definitely didn't want it built, and also had to retaliate for Nord Stream. On the other side are T-SGP investors going way back to the 70s in expectation of reaping trillions of dollars selling gas to Europe. Either side needs their supporter at the top, and while Nigeria democratically chose its, Niger has decided to choose its with a Russian assisted coup, which some say us resisting is a war against Northern Nigeria. All countrys are internally conflicted about their alignments, is my point, with some of us Nigerians being anti or pro various alignments.

But as I said, "I read", and not, that is what you wrote. So, just correcting my own ignorance I suppose, and informing you of it.

Do flesh out your point.

In geopolitics, it is customary to describe the foreign policy directions of countries in a manner that may be construed as these countries "speaking of one single minded entity".

-Lord

pansophist:


I like the countries that were invited to join. The list seems strategic, as they are independent in the truest sense of Independence.

Are you not concerned that the picks will fuel the notion that BRICS is a talk shop?

By the way, who did India sponsor?

I know Brazil insisted on Argentina. Russia penned Iran. South Africa pushed for Ethiopia.

I'm leaning towards UAE. It is India's #2 and #3 top import and export partner.

According to Wikipedia, Nigeria has applied to join BRICS, I don't know how true it is. But I doubt Nigeria will join anytime soon, because Nigeria seems like a puppet to me.

In Africa for example, west Africa is the least organised, developed and independent region. How can you explain that in the presence of ECOWAS, France still manipulate the francophone counries?

Libya borders ECOWAS via Niger, but the political situation of the ECOWAS community is so weak, that NATO can destroy Libya without any repercussion from the bloc.

See how ECOWAS is barking at the instruction of the West to invade Niger, such speed would be expected from the bloc to deal with poverty, insurgency, corruption, regional integration, from transportation to economy etc.

France still control the currencies, economy and resources of Francophone countries, meanwhile, ECOWAS sees no reason to fight for the freedom of its member states.

Nigeria that should lead is so deeply corrupted and messed up, that the West African region has officially become the most messed up region on Africa.

The most developed region in Africa is the North, followed by the South, then the east then the West. And in the West, if you minus Ghana, ivory Coast and Nigeria, the region is a largely in a pitiable condition.

Right now, you'll always come across videos of other African States criticizing western policies across the continent, but I hardly come across such from Nigerian leaders. Nigeria leaders are gatekeepers of Western hegemony in the region.

That's the only reasonable conclusion I can reach. And that's sad. We really have a bleak future and a bloody struggle ahead.

Nigeria's case is not only sad. It's actually excruciatingly painful.

Thankfully, the Global South can topple the Hegemony without our help.

-Lord

LordAdam16:


Do flesh out your point.

In geopolitics, it is customary to describe the foreign policy directions of countries in a manner that may be construed as these countries "speaking of one single minded entity".

-Lord

In reality, no single voice speaks for any country with perhaps the exception of Russia and Saudi Arabia and China, and assuming a country speaks as 'one single minded entity' is a disregard of politics through which was is voiced is negotiated; and political change, which in many countries is 4-8 years and is a change of voice and often also what is said. Tinubu's one voice about attacking the coupists in Niger is a case in point. He spoke with his one voice and other voices opposed him.

Democracies, after all, do create avenues for other voices to be heard, so why make out they aren't heard "in geopolitics"?

budaatum:


In reality, no single voice speaks for any country with perhaps the exception of Russia and Saudi Arabia and China, and assuming a country speaks as 'one single minded entity' is a disregard of politics through which was is voiced is negotiated; and political change, which in many countries is 4-8 years and is a change of voice and often also what is said. Tinubu's one voice about attacking the coupists in Niger is a case in point. He spoke with his one voice and other voices opposed him.

Democracies, after all, do create avenues for other voices to be heard, so why make out they aren't heard "in geopolitics"?

That's because they aren't heard.

In the US, for instance, should Trump become the POTUS again: He may stop funding Ukraine and end the War. But he sure as hell will not close all 100+ US bases and turn inward.

Internal conflicts as far as geopolitics is concerned only affects near-term resolutions. Over longer periods, virtually all countries have what one might call "a DNA" that presents as a single voice.

The UK lost their spot as the Apex superpower. Has that stopped the country from being a rabid warmonger knocking heads in Europe and across the world? That's their DNA.

It explains a lot about geopolitics if you look closely.

The vast majority of the country may oppose Tinubu's Niger gambit, but if you read pansophist 's earlier reply; you'll understand that Nigeria is a Western client state. All regions in Nigeria lean West. The plurality of our major politicos lean West. This "internal conflict" you describe relating to the Niger coup is akin to the "internal conflict" that the Germans had when Russia launched the SMO.

In both cases, Western interests prevailed.

In fact, the US maintains a gargantuan force structure so it can impose its will regardless of "internal conflicts".

And that is America's "DNA". Which is why the China-Russia led effort to enforce multipolarity is gaining steam. No one is under any illusion that we can reason the US out of their connate nature to never accept peer powers. Team Red destabilized Iraq and Afghanistan. Team Blue destabilized Libya and Syria.

Millennia of recorded history does not support the hypothesis that there are habitual "internal conflicts" that can radically change the fundamental character of a nation's foreign policy.

In instances, like Nasser's Egypt that flip-flopped allegiances wantonly; the primary objective and long-term trajectory was to retain Egypt's position as the Arab world's pre-eminent military power. Everyone within the Egyptian polity implicitly understood this. Till date, all Egyptian rulers balance relationships with the West and East for the same reason.

Internal conflict could not help France after it paid for Russian helicopter carriers and the US forced them to sell the ships to Egypt. That transient victory that Washington got will not end French attempts to continue to seek out avenues to assert itself; because that is their DNA. From 1969 to 2009, France voluntarily withdrew from the NATO Military Command Structure. The only country other than Greece to do that. Again, it's their DNA. The French can't wait for the day that US power recedes and they become the dominant force in Continental Europe. A deep yearning forged by Napoleon's and the Sun King's extraordinary exploits.

Internal conflicts are just that internal conflicts. The reality of geopolitics is that there are red lines, sanctions, historical experiences (like the Century of Humiliation for the Chinese) and other factors that dampen the ramifications of internal dissensions and ultimately compels countries to act like they're speaking with one voice.

-Lord

LordAdam16:
That's because they aren't heard.

I want to think it is "they" who aren't listening. Thankfully, the unheard have a tendency to increase in number and shout louder.

LordAdam16:
In the US, for instance, should Trump become the POTUS again: He may stop funding Ukraine and end the War. But he sure as hell will not close all 100+ US bases and turn inward.

I agree they might not close all 100+ US bases and turn inward, but is that not just an example of doing the same thing and hoping for better results?

While America was building 100+ bases and huge debt, China moved the battlefield to economic warfare. Or do you think Americans will not change their DNA at some point if their current DNA is failing them? It is that DNA ability to change that I think makes them the superpower they are today, so I doubt they'd abandon it so quickly.

LordAdam16:
Internal conflicts as far as geopolitics is concerned only affects near-term resolutions. Over longer periods, virtually all countries have what one might call "a DNA" that presents as a single voice.

I wouldn't say this is true, and is indicative of not listening I'd say. Countries DNAs after all do change over time. China, again, moving from its supposed Communist DNA to uber-capitalist now is a clear example of dna evolution and change. Even Saudi Arabia is finding the need to shift from its misogynistic DNA. And DNA change is what the coup in Niger is indicting, at least in whom their DNA aligns with.

LordAdam16:
The UK lost their spot as the Apex superpower. Has that stopped the country from being a rabid warmonger knocking heads in Europe and across the world? That's their DNA.

I do not share your "rabid wormonger" characterisation of UK, nor do I agree that UK that has historically wanted autonomy from Europe knocks heads in Europe. Its foray across the world is no different to Spain's or Portugal's or Germany's or France's, even historically speaking, so it must have been an European DNA if anything.

What's in UK's DNA is profit making, if you asked me, and that has a lot more to explain "geopolitics if you look closely" than any supposed country's DNA which constantly changes and evolves.

LordAdam16:
The vast majority of the country may oppose Tinubu's Niger gambit, but if you read pansophist 's earlier reply; you'll understand that Nigeria is a Western client state. All regions in Nigeria lean West. The plurality of our major politicos lean West. This "internal conflict" you describe relating to the Niger coup is akin to the "internal conflict" that the Germans had when Russia launched the SMO.

In both cases, Western interests prevailed.

We lean West because we have historically leaned West, but nothing says we couldn't and don't lean elsewhere or haven't in the past. Some of us afterall leaned towards the middle east and even adopted middle eastern religion and worldview as opposed to that of the west.

The "vast majority of the country" opposed the last government of NIger too for leaning west and aligning with France and letting "Western interests prevail", then there was a thing called a coup and we saw the "vast majority of the country" jubilating on the streets, so I wouldn't underestimate the "vast majority of the country" myself, but that's me, I guess.

Botragelad:
Nice thread......
I think it is possible that the United States will still be the world power in the next 100 years. Large and diverse economy, which accounts for about a quarter of the global GDP, strong military presence, with hundreds of overseas bases and alliances with many countries, vibrant culture, which influences many aspects of global entertainment, media, education, and innovation, resilient political system, which allows for peaceful transitions of power and checks and balances among different branches of government.

They also have a history of adapting to new international realities, such as the rise of China, the challenges of climate change, and the threats of terrorism.
In reality, the United States faces many challenges and uncertainties in this 21st century, and it cannot take its global leadership for granted. It will have to compete with other emerging powers, such as China, India, Brazil, and maybe Nigeria which will have larger populations and economies by 2050.

Still, I see no one taking that position they hold!

US is gone trust me .... The New Power Zones(BRICS) are Rising & The are Rising to Balance the Global Powers .... There are alot of Behind the Scenes than We Know about Humanities.....

US itself is tired of the cost of being global police & this is the time for them to look inward to avoid disintegration...

My issue is why is Nigeria not taking advantage of the new power bloc BRICs & establishing Domino there for Africa before the table is overtaken such as was done with UN ...

We can't continue to be regional champion or local warrior .... we can't even fix our GeoZones ....

We must get there, Amen.

LordAdam16:
@pansophist and all:

Saudi Arabia, Iran, UAE, Egypt, Argentina, Ethiopia are BRICS new members.

Hmm!

-Lord

On a different note, I was wondering about the criteria Brics used in choosing countries that should join. I have been thinking about what advantages Ethiopia, Egypt, and Argentina will have in the bloc.

Egypt is a transcontinental country, with a landmass in Africa and western Asia, with a population of 100 million people, how does this benefit the alliance?

Ethiopia is more of a baggage than an advantage. It is a landlocked country that can only supply low-skill workers like China in the 70s. Ethiopia is like the ¨token black guy¨ a figurehead.

Argentina? lol. No comment.

A better team would be UAE, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf member states because of their oil, and ability to end the petrodollar overnight.

Syria because of its location (access to the Mediterranean and the opposite of pro-west) and a huge reservoir of oil in their northern region which America currently occupies.

Nigeria would have been the perfect candidate since Nigeria is the alpha dog of West Africa, Africa's largest economy, Africa's largest population, and natural resources. Sadly, a western vassal state is not wanted in Brics.

A formidable BRICS as I see it should be China (economic behemoth), Russia (resources and military power), India (largest population), Iran, Iraq, UAE, Saudi (oil and hate the west), and maybe the central Asian countries (location, resources, and an extension of Russia/China geopolitically).

The EU for example started with super strong countries and economies, when they established themselves as a bloc, then they started adding new weaker communist countries such as the Baltics, Romania, Bulgaria, etc.

At this formative stage, careful considerations must be given when choosing members, and the chosen must have usefulness in realtime, not just occupying a seat.

I really learnt a lot ohhhh.

But In all this discourse, no one has mentioned North Korea why

mattbass:
I really learnt a lot ohhhh.

But In all this discourse, no one has mentioned North Korea why

No one also mentioned Mongolia or Vanuatu. Why should North Korea be mentioned?

Abi you don jam one North Korean babe and you need a visa to japa?

Nigeria cannot withstand the bullying of the West without BRICS. A brilliant interview by a Nigerian political analyst.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqBfRGcQmLc

pansophist:
Nigeria cannot withstand the bullying of the West without BRICS. A brilliant interview by a Nigerian political analyst.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqBfRGcQmLc

Nigeria needs to get it's shit together. Poor policy, corruption at maximum, tribalism and mismanagement of funds just to name a few would be the major hinderance rk joining BRICS

Regex:


Nigeria needs to get it's shit together. Poor policy, corruption at maximum, tribalism and mismanagement of funds just to name a few would be the major hinderance rk joining BRICS

South Africa would not want us in BRICS. They seem to enjoy the privilege of being the African power in the bloc.

pansophist:


South Africa would not want us in BRICS. They seem to enjoy the privilege of being the African power in the bloc.

They have always dragged the African giant with us. Despite them being the true giant and us having a behemoth of people aka population.

I am not versed in geopolitics, so I will follow this thread to learn more. Thanks for making it.

Botragelad:
Nice thread......
I think it is possible that the United States will still be the world power in the next 100 years. Large and diverse economy, which accounts for about a quarter of the global GDP, strong military presence, with hundreds of overseas bases and alliances with many countries, vibrant culture, which influences many aspects of global entertainment, media, education, and innovation, resilient political system, which allows for peaceful transitions of power and checks and balances among different branches of government.

They also have a history of adapting to new international realities, such as the rise of China, the challenges of climate change, and the threats of terrorism.
In reality, the United States faces many challenges and uncertainties in this 21st century, and it cannot take its global leadership for granted. It will have to compete with other emerging powers, such as China, India, Brazil, and maybe Nigeria which will have larger populations and economies by 2050.

Still, I see no one taking that position they hold!

@emboldened

The US adaptation to the given international realities is questionable. Would you say that they reacted well to China's evolution? Would you say that their climate policies are effective?
You can react to something but your reaction might not be good.

budaatum:


Don't you wonder why they borrow at all if they can print money as you suggest?

Still, there may come a time when their printed money is not worth the paper it's written on and creditors ask for more in interest to hold it, is a point you are not considering. Inflation too might erode it's value making it less worth holding.

Here's an opinion on it.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2023/05/03/debt-ceiling-scenarios/

Also note that the British pound was the major reserve currency until World War II, so there's nothing to say America's status of reserve currency would last forever.

Here is a thorough video that explains the place of reserve currencies in changing world geopolitics :


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xguam0TKMw8&pp=ygUUY2hhbmdpbmcgd29ybGQgb3JkZXI%3D

Quite instructive.

Gerrard59:


While I agree that the US economy is doing very fine compared to her peers, I don't see her dominating the world for the next century as she has for the past century. One is the rise of China and other emerging powers like India and Indonesia. While both I countries are not like China economically, their population and growth of economies mean they would grow clout and demand a greater share in global affairs. Every country outside the West witnesses how China is bullied unjustly and falsely simply because she decides to prosper. The same fate awaits India and Indonesia; I wager they are preparing for it. The US and her allies would have to share global prominence. A unipolar world cannot continue to exist.

Europe's population (America's greatest ally) and, in fact, all of America's allies have rapidly declining birth rates which affect GDP growth, consumption and investment. They use immigration to offset this problem, but in reality, immigration does not solve the birth decline. It only solves population crises. For instance, in the '90s, Germany imported Turks to work in factories and bolster the workforce. Today, the same Germany is inviting immigrants, mostly from Arabian countries, to replace ageing workers. Additionally, Europe's immigration problems are social in nature. Even though I am an immigrant where I am, I don't believe in an open-door immigration system as the Europeans do, especially from cultures which are in stark difference from the native ones. So Europe, like Japan and Korea, would face severe demographic problems. However, Europe's own would be worse because the migrants have distinctive cultures, and Europe is abut to the world's poorest continent.

In some ways, I see it as karma after all the Europeans divided Africa for their spoils. So, they should benefit from the current invasion just as they did to Africa. Also, since they have blatantly refused to appropriately aid Africa's industrialisation just as they did with East Asia and now with South East Asia, anything they see, they should take it like that.

Gerrard, could you expatiate on the emboldened point please?

pansophist:


No one also mentioned Mongolia or Vanuatu. Why should North Korea be mentioned?

Abi you don jam one North Korean babe and you need a visa to japa?

Hahhaha no be so.....If I get I go happy 😊

Kipaji:


Here is a thorough video that explains the place of reserve currencies in changing world geopolitics :


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xguam0TKMw8&pp=ygUUY2hhbmdpbmcgd29ybGQgb3JkZXI%3D

Quite instructive.

Like telling me to leave high school and go learn what is taught in primary one for an hour.

What point are you making?

budaatum:


Like telling me to leave high school and go learn what is taught in primary one for an hour.

What point are you making?

I am not making a point. This video explains how geopolitical and economic power shifted from country to country through time.
It actually hints at why the world economy order is changing in disfavor of America.
The video was very instructive.

I have been seeing all over the internet that china is currently going through a deflation, do you guys think it is something to be worried about and can hurt china's economy?

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/24/chinas-deflation-could-spill-over-into-a-global-concern-economists-say.html