Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-12-2015, 10:20 AM
 
2,973 posts, read 1,977,564 times
Reputation: 1080

Advertisements

Interesting article about De-Dollarization:

BRICS and the Fiction of “De-Dollarization” | Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-12-2015, 11:33 PM
 
Location: Metro Phoenix
11,039 posts, read 16,874,855 times
Reputation: 12950
A lot of people seem to view this as the world socking it to the US, specifically as a big "f-you" to it and its global hegemony. That's really more just people projecting their personal frustrations at the US onto a complex global economic issue.

how many of the nations that signed on with the AIIB who were members of the IMF and world bank have renounced their membership? Zero. That would be a big middle finger to the US, but that isn't happening any time soon. The nations that are members have billions tied up and benefit from their membership; if they didn't, they'd walk.

This is more a situation where, say, a business owner has been dealing with a bank for years and benefitted from it, but then another bank opens up and offers good perks for joining, so they take some of the money they make from their business and put it in the new bank while leaving the money they had in their old bank there all the same.

The NDB/AIIB are great opportunities for nations who were not allowed into the WB/IMF. The US and post-colonial powers who make up these entities operated in a very predatory way towards developing nations, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, packaging investment with self-serving political and economic requirements. "Sure, we will invest in your country, but you won't be abke to trade with this country, have to sever political ties with this one, and offer exclusive trade rights to our corporations." That sucks. you also have more than a few examples of the US and UK turning its back, or turning on, former allies or partners as the wind blows, iraq being a great example.

The thing that the US needs to take heed of in this is matter is that it is no longer the only option. The UK and France lost their global hegemony and are simply looking out for their own best interest and diversifying their investments, as they have done for some time now. The US' current economic policies are a total mess and a model of cronyist inefficiency. People in the US Itself are increasingly sick of its shift towards a bureaucratic oligarchy and other nations are increasingly wary of going down the same road.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2015, 11:46 PM
 
Location: United Kingdom
969 posts, read 826,289 times
Reputation: 728
Quote:
Originally Posted by 415_s2k View Post
A lot of people seem to view this as the world socking it to the US, specifically as a big "f-you" to it and its global hegemony. That's really more just people projecting their personal frustrations at the US onto a complex global economic issue.

how many of the nations that signed on with the AIIB who were members of the IMF and world bank have renounced their membership? Zero. That would be a big middle finger to the US, but that isn't happening any time soon. The nations that are members have billions tied up and benefit from their membership; if they didn't, they'd walk.

This is more a situation where, say, a business owner has been dealing with a bank for years and benefitted from it, but then another bank opens up and offers good perks for joining, so they take some of the money they make from their business and put it in the new bank while leaving the money they had in their old bank there all the same.

The NDB/AIIB are great opportunities for nations who were not allowed into the WB/IMF. The US and post-colonial powers who make up these entities operated in a very predatory way towards developing nations, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, packaging investment with self-serving political and economic requirements. "Sure, we will invest in your country, but you won't be abke to trade with this country, have to sever political ties with this one, and offer exclusive trade rights to our corporations." That sucks. you also have more than a few examples of the US and UK turning its back, or turning on, former allies or partners as the wind blows, iraq being a great example.

The thing that the US needs to take heed of in this is matter is that it is no longer the only option. The UK and France lost their global hegemony and are simply looking out for their own best interest and diversifying their investments, as they have done for some time now. The US' current economic policies are a total mess and a model of cronyist inefficiency. People in the US Itself are increasingly sick of its shift towards a bureaucratic oligarchy and other nations are increasingly wary of going down the same road.
You've neglected the diplomatic angle. The fact that even the closest allies of the U.S. openly and directly rebuffed concerted pressure from the Obama administration not to join.

By refusing to act in lockstep with the de facto mandates of the USA, these nations knew fully well that it would be a very public embarrassment for the US government, with potentially very significant long term geopolitical and diplomatic ramifications, but they went ahead and did so anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2015, 11:50 PM
 
Location: Leeds, UK
22,112 posts, read 29,604,933 times
Reputation: 8819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariete View Post
Not this crap again. Jeez. I won't even bother. It's not true.


I'm simply saying that the military presence of the US in Europe is currently

2nd Cavalry Brigade (Germany)
173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team (Italy)
12th Combat Aviation Brigade (Germany)
10th Army Air & Missile Defense Command (Germany)

Including a few paper-pushers, some 30,000 combat personnel. A drop in the water.

And 10 largest military spenders in 2014:

1 United States 581.0
2 China 129.4
3 Saudi Arabia 80.8
4 Russia 70.0
5 United Kingdom 61.8
6 France 53.1
7 Japan 47.7
8 India 45.2
9 Germany 43.9
10 South Korea 34.4

You're able to spot a few European countries? And Italy is 12th.
Good point. The UK and France in any case cooperate very closely in military terms. With Germany, Italy and Spain, our military force would be far larger than Russia's. No doubt about it. People only tip toe around Russia because of its large nuclear arsenal. Remove that, and you are left with a country that isn't mightier or much bigger than the European powers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2015, 12:32 AM
 
2,973 posts, read 1,977,564 times
Reputation: 1080
Taiwan is rejected by China to join as founding member.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2015, 12:54 AM
 
Location: Taipei
8,871 posts, read 8,456,389 times
Reputation: 7424
Lol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2015, 01:22 AM
 
2,973 posts, read 1,977,564 times
Reputation: 1080
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTDominion View Post
You've neglected the diplomatic angle. The fact that even the closest allies of the U.S. openly and directly rebuffed concerted pressure from the Obama administration not to join.

By refusing to act in lockstep with the de facto mandates of the USA, these nations knew fully well that it would be a very public embarrassment for the US government, with potentially very significant long term geopolitical and diplomatic ramifications, but they went ahead and did so anyway.
The U.S. Never publicly expressed strong objections to the countries joining aiib. At most some officials only listed some concerns and asked countries to ensure that it will have high standard of transparency and governance.
It was merely the media's portrayal of the U.S. giving order to allies not to join.
While we will never know what exactly happens behind the scene and there maybe embarrassment of the U.S., I don't think it will cause any substantial damage to its relations with the countries that joined aiib. It's not like the U.S. Issued a formal ultimatum requesting all countries not to join or else they face economic sanctions.
The media might have exaggerated things to attract more readers.
After all, it's another economic cooperation which there are plenty out there, some of which US isn't a member of.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2015, 02:00 AM
 
Location: Mount of Showing the Way
1,946 posts, read 2,566,131 times
Reputation: 615
UPDATE 1-China rejects Taiwan as founding member of policy bank | Reuters
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2015, 02:15 AM
 
Location: United Kingdom
969 posts, read 826,289 times
Reputation: 728
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daywalk View Post
The U.S. Never publicly expressed strong objections to the countries joining aiib. At most some officials only listed some concerns and asked countries to ensure that it will have high standard of transparency and governance.
It was merely the media's portrayal of the U.S. giving order to allies not to join.
While we will never know what exactly happens behind the scene and there maybe embarrassment of the U.S., I don't think it will cause any substantial damage to its relations with the countries that joined aiib. It's not like the U.S. Issued a formal ultimatum requesting all countries not to join or else they face economic sanctions.
The media might have exaggerated things to attract more readers.
After all, it's another economic cooperation which there are plenty out there, some of which US isn't a member of.
Of course the US would never openly behave as a hegemon in its official diplomatic statements.

That's why we speak in de facto terms. There's plenty to suggest between the lines of diplomatic protocol (for example, the extensiveness and persistence with which such advisories we're issued) that this was a failed concerted agenda to isolate the embryonic AIIB.

As for long term ramifications, only time will tell how this will influence the balance of geopolitics. To completely rule out potentially serious consequences for either the U.S. or its allies comes across as wishful thinking at this stage, though more likely than not we won't see any seriously adverse outcomes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2015, 02:38 AM
 
225 posts, read 216,546 times
Reputation: 354
Indeed. Washington's allies have behaved is if they had been actively discouraged from something they saw as beneficial to them, whether or not it was through unofficial channels behind the scenes.

It took the UK to break the mould first before everyone else jumped aboard. It does look very much as if Washington was trying to flexing its diplomatic muscle on the matter and ultimately failed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top