Adonis Diaries

Archive for December 19th, 2010

Emerging nations is becoming a catch all expression that is diluting its meaning and its proper definition.  For example, should we include China among the emerging nations, when the US admits that China is already at a par as an economic and political heavy weight?  Should we include Russia as an emerging nation when Russia was the first State to putting man in orbit, launching satellites, and establishing a permanent sky station?

Can we lump together nations with vast lands and large populations with smaller nations in lands and populations, even substantial progress have been made in global trade share?  The club of the G20 gathered the 20 nations whose combined world trade represents 80% of commerce in import and export of goods and services.  You find small nations with corresponding small populations such as the Netherlands, Denmark, and South Korea siding along India, Brazil, Russia, and China.

Shouldn’t we consider the most critical criteria of sustainable long-term potentials as a delimiting factor among economic clubs?  For example, first, let us list nations with vast lands and large populations such as the USA, China, Russia, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, and Pakistan.  Obviously, the political structure and proven stability for demonstrating viable sustainability is a discriminating variable among those behemoths.

Second, let us list nations with vast lands and sparse populations such as Canada, Australia, South Africa, Argentina, Libya, Chad, Niger, Kazakhstan, Mali, Sudan, Mauritania, and Saudi Arabia…Obviously, the ratio of fertile lands to the mostly desolate and desert areas is a variable, along with literacy ratio of the small population.

Third, let us list nations with vast lands and moderately populated such as Egypt, Nigeria, Algeria, Vietnam, Turkey, Iran, and Thailand.

Fourth, let’s list nations with smaller lands and over populated such as Bangladesh, Japan, France, England, Germany, Italy, Spain, Ethiopia, Kenya, Morocco, and Iraq.

Fifth, let us list smaller nations with comparatively small populations such as The Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Syria, South Korea, Taiwan…

The remaining nations are in fact no nations, if we consider the potential impact for making a dent in world trades, and political weight.

Consequently, we have potential emerging nations is sustainable economy with comparatively stable political structures that convey a viable trend in the medium term.  Among the truly current emerging nations that have no political clout in the UN or in international institutions and have legitimacy in demanding to be included as full members in the G-Clubs are South Africa, Brazil, India, Turkey, Indonesia, and Mexico.  For example, between 2004 and 2008, South Africa witnessed a steady increase in trade averaging 16.5% per year.  Turkey doubled its trade and so did the other emerging nations.  The six emerging nations are acquiring substantial economic weight and will be displacing many established developed nations in the coming decade.

Two-head world presidency: Time to bite the bitter pills

Global institutions for trade, commerce, and finance have faltered after the latest financial crisis, and the world superpowers were unable to remedy for the dwindling economic production and market stability.

Every powerful nation is acting on his own to stabilizing its internal problems:  cooperation in the many economic and financial summits proved to be weak and short-sighted.

Most powerful States know that soon the world will be led by the two-headed presidency: The US and China. 

The US, supported by the western powers and Japan, will be responsible for the planning and providing the know-how; while China, supported by the Far Eastern countries will be responsible for the execution of the programs and production. 

The emerging powers (vast lands and large population) such as Russia, India, Brazil, Turkey, Nigeria, and Indonesia will play the current role of the US:  Mainly absorbing the excesses in production and exporting the needed raw materials.

Why the US and China?

The US currently dominate the world’s institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade and Commerce organization and the most powerful multinational financial institutions; it has the institutions and the know-how for setting the programs in this Capitalist market.

China has the cheap manpower and a dictatorial central power to moving and transferring millions of workers to far away locations in order to quickly execute programs that “democratic” political structures are slow to perform within tight schedules.

Currently, several members of the old club of the G8 (specifically the US and England), within the G20 of the States that grab 80% of global commerce, had implicitly agreed to resume their old-time preferred method for quick money generation: by accelerating speculations on overvalued currencies and higher interest rates in banks of emerging nations such as Brazil, Turkey, South Africa, Argentina, South Korea, Russia, and China.

Thus, the US and England got their money printing machine in full gear, producing liquidity that far exceeds the need of their internal trade market.  They lend money at reduced interest rates (1 to 2%)  to speculative financial institutions so that they invest the money in emerging State banks.

The old club of the G8 are instituting harsh budget cuts affecting primarily the lower middle class in their societies, this class that consumes 70% of internal trade and effectively shoulders the economy.  Thus, economies in the G8 are not to experience any improvement.

The two-head world power system is inevitable; but for this new world order to be swallowed, a major war is to be created for effective demonstration of its feasibility.

Consequently, WikiLeaks has targeted the diffusion of so-called secret foreign policies that are meant to point out the main next enemy (agreed upon by most powerful States such as US, China, and Russia):  Iran.

The North Korean conflict is but a smokescreen or preliminary military joint maneuver by the major States and ironing out the sphere of influence.

Note:  Current currency speculation by major powers has the following consequences:

First, it destabilizes the financial order in the emerging nations and slows down the expansion of its economy with the implicit political message: “You have accelerated your economic plans to counter-weight the political clout of the G8 club.  This policy is premature and done at the wrong timing.  Take a deep breath before confronting us head on so quickly”

Second, the major drawback for the G8 is that their internal trades will be handicapped since liquidity is not infused to the small and medium industries and enterprises that account for real changes in economic development.




December 2010

Blog Stats

  • 1,518,824 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 764 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: