On 2/19/2024 at 11:35 PM, retarius said:

And after he said he would introduce a gold backed {Pan-African currency that could replace the dollars for trade in Africa...

Yeah, South America had this same idea for their continent, Hugo Chavez was a big proponent.  A person needn't be an economist or political wonk to immediately see it's going to be a bunch of kleptocrats picking each other's pockets.  There is also a certain amount of animosity between the countries of Latin America that you will rarely see expressed in any sort of media, save for futbal matches.  Chavez bought out Argentina's debt in the '00s and he became a hero in that country.  A few years later Chavez died and Arg. piled up yet another Everest of debt. 

Talk is back again for Arg. and Brazil to have a common currency.  Governments and political situations aside, there is no love lost between the people of both countries.  I've spent enough time in either country to have heard the denouncements on either side. 

With the fall of the US being seen as a real possibility I would think any of these ideas would be re-assessed in light of who would be the next economic world power.

 

7 hours ago, frank83628 said:

he says while simultaneously deflecting form who killed Epstein and covering for the elites....and for the record...nothing 'indirectly ' about it, i support Putin 100%, he is a far greater leader than any of the current western ones. 

 

Absolutely, as demonstrated by the fact that he is supported by over 80% of Russians.

In January 2024, over eight out of ten percent of Russians approved of the activities of the Russian President Vladimir Putin.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/896181/putin-approval-rating-russia/#:~:text=In January 2024%2C over eight,partial mobilization in the country.


Putin's approval rating up to 85% in November, Russians happy with the country's direction

https://www.intellinews.com/putin-s-approval-rating-up-to-85-in-november-russians-happy-with-the-country-s-direction-303876/



 

Edited February 21, 20242 yr by rattlesnake

2 hours ago, bendejo said:

Yeah, South America had this same idea for their continent, Hugo Chavez was a big proponent.  A person needn't be an economist or political wonk to immediately see it's going to be a bunch of kleptocrats picking each other's pockets.  There is also a certain amount of animosity between the countries of Latin America that you will rarely see expressed in any sort of media, save for futbal matches.  Chavez bought out Argentina's debt in the '00s and he became a hero in that country.  A few years later Chavez died and Arg. piled up yet another Everest of debt. 

Talk is back again for Arg. and Brazil to have a common currency.  Governments and political situations aside, there is no love lost between the people of both countries.  I've spent enough time in either country to have heard the denouncements on either side. 

With the fall of the US being seen as a real possibility I would think any of these ideas would be re-assessed in light of who would be the next economic world power.

 

 

I think it is this concept of one "economic world power" which is disappearing (even if the Western political and media establishment pretend it isn't), as outlined by Putin's speech at the BRICS summit last August:

All of us here are proponents of a new multipolar world order with a genuine balance of interests and taking into consideration the sovereign interests of as many countries as possible, while enabling them to follow their own development models and helping them preserve their diverse national cultures and traditions.

It is obvious, however, that the emergence of a new world order, which is an objective process, has its fierce opponents who are seeking to stall this process and avert the emergence of new, independent centres of development and power around the world.

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/72096

 

 

17 hours ago, heybruce said:

The old "I'm not going to provide sources for my claims, I'm going to tell you to do the research yourself" dodge.

 

Why don't you provide a couple of pertinent quotes from your recommended sources showing "defense contractors are encouraging military interventions"?  Something from this century, or perhaps the late 20th century, would be more pertinent to current circumstances.

I have provided references to four fundamental and universally recognised books on the matter, anyone is free to do their own research on them and read them to develop their knowledge and understanding. This topic is far too complex to be illustrated with single, all-encompassing quotes.

21 hours ago, rabas said:

 

You missed the heart of capitalism, R&D, which leads to vast global production of useful products and services. The US spends nearly $700 billion on R&D each year, [ref] almost 20 times more than Putin's Russia. Per capita, Thailand outspends Russia on R&D by almost 20%.  R&D, my background, is a form of speculation.

 

Sorry to mention Russia, just trying to get back on topic.

Yes, but what I was referring to when I mentioned speculation-based capitalism were the subsequent layers of financial instruments (such as the credit default swaps invented by Blythe Masters) which consist in creating money out of thin air.

Debt is the root of all problems and in this respect, Putin did pretty well after taking over a country left in bad shape by Yeltsin's pro-Western policies.

A reminder from 2005:

 

Russia pays off IMF debt early
On January 31, Russia ceased being one of the IMF’s five largest debtor countries when it repaid its remaining $3.33 billion debt.

https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/023/0034/002/article-A004-en.xml

9 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

I have provided references to four fundamental and universally recognised books on the matter, anyone is free to do their own research on them and read them to develop their knowledge and understanding. This topic is far too complex to be illustrated with single, all-encompassing quotes.

In other words, you can provide no examples of "defense contractors are encouraging military interventions" as you claimed in your earlier post.  Got it.

On 2/21/2024 at 8:57 AM, RuamRudy said:

from behind his 30ft long table.

The Tucker Carlson "interview" was from a very short table. 

9 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Yes, but what I was referring to when I mentioned speculation-based capitalism were the subsequent layers of financial instruments (such as the credit default swaps invented by Blythe Masters) which consist in creating money out of thin air.

Debt is the root of all problems and in this respect, Putin did pretty well after taking over a country left in bad shape by Yeltsin's pro-Western policies.

A reminder from 2005:

 

Russia pays off IMF debt early
On January 31, Russia ceased being one of the IMF’s five largest debtor countries when it repaid its remaining $3.33 billion debt.

https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/023/0034/002/article-A004-en.xml

Right. Putin only failed to grow his country's GDP per capita between 2013 and 2022.

Russia is an economic dwarf, Putin failed to develop the Russian economy.

2 minutes ago, candide said:

Putin failed to develop the Russian economy.

But strangely its doing better than predicted even after the illegal sanctions imposed by the good ole USA

1 minute ago, johng said:

But strangely its doing better than predicted even after the illegal sanctions imposed by the good ole USA

Right, it has been quite resilient so far. It doesn't change the fact that Russia's GDP is only at around Italy's level and did not grow between 2013 and 2022.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/RUS/russia/gdp-gross-domestic-product

7 minutes ago, johng said:

But strangely its doing better than predicted even after the illegal sanctions imposed by the good ole USA

If you are going to take a portion of a post out of context (and add a period so it looks like the sentence fragment quoted was a complete sentence) you shouldn't do so immediately after the post you are misrepresenting.  It's too easy to spot the BS.

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

It's too easy to spot the BS.

As you can (not) see I've given you a confused emoji 

I quoted a snippet for brevity and didn't add a period.

 

The Russian economy is doing better than expected despite the illegal USA sanctions  where is the BS in that statement.

Even the person I was replying to says.

 

1 hour ago, candide said:

Right, it has been quite resilient so far.

 

13 minutes ago, johng said:

As you can (not) see I've given you a confused emoji 

I quoted a snippet for brevity and didn't add a period.

 

The Russian economy is doing better than expected despite the illegal USA sanctions  where is the BS in that statement.

Even the person I was replying to says.

 

 

You are correct about the period, I posted in haste.  Sorry.

 

However the point of Candide's post was that Putin had the people, resources and opportunity to make Russia into a prosperous first world economy, and instead made it into a commodities dependent kleptocracy.  It remains to be seen how long the current China dependent war economy can last, or what China intends do seek in return for its support.

17 minutes ago, johng said:

As you can (not) see I've given you a confused emoji 

I quoted a snippet for brevity and didn't add a period.

 

The Russian economy is doing better than expected despite the illegal USA sanctions  where is the BS in that statement.

Even the person I was replying to says.

 

 

"Illegal sanctions"? What about the illegal war started by Putin?

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

make Russia into a prosperous first world economy, and instead made it into a commodities dependent kleptocracy. 

It can become a prosperous economy using its commodities which are in demand worldwide.

IMHO  first world economies reliant on  fractional reserve banking, ponzi scheme stock markets and a vote that means virtually nothing as there is no difference between the candidates are no better than a kleptocracy anyway.

7 minutes ago, candide said:

"Illegal sanctions"? What about the illegal war started by Putin?

What about the illegal wars started by Bush,O-bomber and Brandon ?

 

The sanctions are illegal because the USA just arbitrarily impose them on any one or country they deem fit, coerce other countries to follow

and threaten those who don't

35 minutes ago, johng said:

What about the illegal wars started by Bush,O-bomber and Brandon ?

 

The sanctions are illegal because the USA just arbitrarily impose them on any one or country they deem fit, coerce other countries to follow

and threaten those who don't

I agree with you about the war in Irak. However I don't know about "Brandon" having started a war.

 

Could the sanctions be considered as illegal? That can be discussed.

However, it's certainly a pale sin compared to a country coercing another country by invading it and bombing its population.

 

If one cannot even invade another country without being sanctioned.... 😀

Edited February 22, 20242 yr by candide

32 minutes ago, johng said:

It can become a prosperous economy using its commodities which are in demand worldwide.

IMHO  first world economies reliant on  fractional reserve banking, ponzi scheme stock markets and a vote that means virtually nothing as there is no difference between the candidates are no better than a kleptocracy anyway.

It "can", except that it didn't.

2 minutes ago, candide said:

coercing another country by invading it and bombing its population.

Iraq,Afghanistan,Libya,Syria,

Palestine, to name a few.

Just now, johng said:

Iraq,Afghanistan,Libya,Syria,

Palestine, to name a few.

How does it exonerate Putin?

52 minutes ago, johng said:

It can become a prosperous economy using its commodities which are in demand worldwide.

IMHO  first world economies reliant on  fractional reserve banking, ponzi scheme stock markets and a vote that means virtually nothing as there is no difference between the candidates are no better than a kleptocracy anyway.

IMHO you have no concept about how the modern economy works.

I am no fan of Putin, no one gets' to this level of play in Russian  politics , and stay there without carrying some sharp knives, 

I don't doubt that someone killed Navalny but I don't think Putin was directly involved. 

I say directly because He did put him there and as such , among other things put him in in an vulnerable

position. 

The reason why I don't think Putin was directly involved is, why would he do this at this time? 

Navalny was effectively naturalized,  and as far as know presented no significant danger to Putin. 

On the other hand he must have known that the mysterious death of his political opponent while in jail  as a political prisoner would have negative consequences for him. 

So why have him killed now? What would he have to gain? and what would he have to lose?  

 

8 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I am no fan of Putin, no one gets' to this level of play in Russian  politics , and stay there without carrying some sharp knives, 

I don't doubt that someone killed Navalny but I don't think Putin was directly involved. 

I say directly because He did put him there and as such , among other things put him in in an vulnerable

position. 

The reason why I don't think Putin was directly involved is, why would he do this at this time? 

Navalny was effectively naturalized,  and as far as know presented no significant danger to Putin. 

On the other hand he must have known that the mysterious death of his political opponent while in jail  as a political prisoner would have negative consequences for him. 

So why have him killed now? What would he have to gain? and what would he have to lose?  

 

You are assuming that Putin always reacts rationally.

2 hours ago, johng said:

It can become a prosperous economy using its commodities which are in demand worldwide.

IMHO  first world economies reliant on  fractional reserve banking, ponzi scheme stock markets and a vote that means virtually nothing as there is no difference between the candidates are no better than a kleptocracy anyway.

 

Why isn't it?  Because Putin...

 

Putin took a perfectly failed state, the USSR, and ruined it. They can't even win a war because of so much corruption. Putin's unstoppable missiles keep getting shot down, his impenetrable air defense systems keep getting penetrated. [watch Putin]. 

 

As for your Ponsi scheme sound byte, the US far exceeds Russia in oil production, now 13M to 9.5M bbl/day. Natural gas by even more. I already mentioned the golden economic goose, R&D, where no.1 US far exceeds Russia by a whopping 20 times. Why? Putin. He locks up scientists because he doesn't trust them.

 

Russia's hallowed space program? Far behind and falling. Why? You got it, Putin. Corruption. In 2023  Russia is now 5th worldwide in launched objects, 30 times behind the US. [ref] Your ponzi scheme US launched 81% of all the world's satellites. 

 

I too would love to see a strong, free Russia. Best thing for the world. Would you join me in calling for a Putin free Russia so that it can happen?  

 

3 hours ago, candide said:

How does it exonerate Putin?

It doesn't  "they"  are all about the same.

Just now, johng said:

It doesn't  "they"  are all about the same.

Is invading a country in order to annex it (or part of it) the same as the examples you give?

Business as usual in Russia.  History repeats itself.

 

Czar, Lenin, Stalin no different along with Marcos, Saddam, Shah and others just to name a few.

 

Why is anyone surprised.

 

Not only Russia.  Many third world countries leaders take away their political threats.

 

Nothing new.

 

Dorothy, we’re not in Kansas anymore.

Edited February 22, 20242 yr by G_Money

1 hour ago, rabas said:

Putin took a perfectly failed state, the USSR, and ruined it

perfectly failed ?  seems to me it couldn't get worse..so how come the economy is doing better than expected ?

 

1 hour ago, rabas said:

the US far exceeds Russia in oil production, now 13M to 9.5M bbl/day. Natural gas by even more

So how come the price in USA is higher than in Russia

 

1 hour ago, rabas said:

He locks up scientists because he doesn't trust them.

Really ? I haven't read anything about that

1 hour ago, rabas said:

Russia's hallowed space program?

US was dependent on Russian launches for a long time after the shuttle disasters.

 

1 hour ago, rabas said:

I too would love to see a strong, free Russia. Best thing for the world. Would you join me in calling for a Putin free Russia so that it can happen?  

The Russian people should and will decide that of their own accord  not by the meddling of uncle sam's CIA

16 minutes ago, candide said:

Is invading a country in order to annex it (or part of it) the same as the examples you give?

I mean the "leaders" of countries are all about the same  they also invade or wage economic war on other countries but seem to get a free reign to do so  whilst others are demonised  I'm saying that it's hypocritical to criticise Putin but not all the others who do (have done) exactly the same thing.

Maybe he p—-ed off the shot caller in prison.