Sep 11, 2023·edited Sep 11, 2023Liked by Karl Sanchez
excellent! thanks karl... i found it interesting the early idea in the post on reforming the imf.. i can't see it happening myself... the imf has always been designed to dominate others.. as we see with the bank of international settlements - it is the very same principle in action - dominate, but don't seek any type of equal partnership.. that runs against the colonialist mindset which is to dominate.. unfortunately for the west, the jig is running out of time to continue in its present function and role.. these so called international institutions are going to have to undergo serious changes, or they will be replaced with more honest and transparent institutions that benefit everyone, as opposed to the few..
Like you, I'm confused about the attempt to reform the Bretton Woods Institutions other than it's been a goal for decades. Now the aim is to move on beyond them, but the attempts at reform have continued and apparently have finally gained some traction. The WTO issues seem to be somewhat different, although the blocking entity is the same. The issue is the Bretton Woods Institutions will remain alive because of previous actions--loans and such. How this all shakes-out is unclear; so, we just need to watch and see what happens.
Sep 11, 2023·edited Sep 11, 2023Liked by Karl Sanchez
"...who did not allow the activities of the structure created to solve the problems of the world economy and finance to be turned into a kind of "politicized circle"." My Russian isn't up to snuff but I believe a more literal translation would be " to be turned into a kind of 'political circle jerk'!"
Thank you for this. It looked like maybe the US would be able to make some moves with Xi and Putin absent but in fact the opposite happened; the Global South is making its agenda felt and finding its footing in both establishing and articulating its post-colonialist mutual alignment. There is some sort of see-saw effect: as one side is rising the other is falling. I believe at some point this will manifest in the West as domestic upheaval during which some sort of paradigmatic regime change will unfold. Whether it will be a consolidation of totalitarian type technocracy or a renewal of 'liberal' sovereignty based on traditional values promoting self-governance and conservative smaller-government emphasis on family, nation, country and God remains to be seen. The battle lines are even now being drawn as an increasingly powerful Centralized State begins to persecute and marginalize its political opposition in the name of 'defending democracy from fascists', meaning people who don't vote the way they want.
And as the West crumples from increasingly internal turmoil, the RoW will move forward quite nicely, enjoying a clear growth mode. One article I was skimming a few days ago was wondering out loud how Russia could possibly 'really' want to disconnect from the West, that it will lose too much wealth that way. But to me it looks like there will soon be a historic boom in Central Eurasia (where apparently the Western Empire is still trying to sow chaos but it's not often reported) which will benefit Russia hugely as both neighbour and partner. Indeed, it might end up being the main driver of world economic growth this coming century.
Meanwhile, the nature of all societies world wide continues to evolve in a shared overall gestalt which has been driven by the Industrial Revolution of 150 years ago. Here there is increasing convergence even as diplomatic and financial divergence is currently under way. All major nations are about to release CBDC's and even recent Russian statements indicate that they are anticipating this will be connected to the BIS somehow. How this all shakes out of course remains to be seen but it looks like there will some sort of universal system along Managerialist lines, albeit with regional differences that terrain, culture and language demand.
Interesting times. Thank you for your substack. Though I am always wanting to read more about what you think about things, not only statements by other world leaders. Although I generally think your take on Russia and China is too benign, even hagiographic, I greatly value how you track the multipolarity emergence and have learned much.
After the Age of Plunder will come the Age of Repentance or so it seems at this point in time. Twenty years ago, a judgement was arrived at positing to position yourself somewhere within the economy of needs, not the wants associated with discretionary spending that was predicted to diminish. I don't see any reason to alter that judgement, at least within the West. In "Foundation", Asimov put forth the notion that those inhabiting Trantor--the Empire's center--had forgotten how to operate the basic means of its support--Atomics as he termed it. And Atomics provided the energy for the Empire's entire basis. The West has essentially renounced the use of Atomics, while the RoW is advancing its use and its efficiency. And the same can be said for other areas of political-economy. In "Killing the Host," Hudson told us what and who was killing the Empire; and unlike with his "Super Imperialism," the elites turned a blind eye to that set of truths--and that was eight years ago.
I see energy as the key element as the century moves forward along with nations having participatory governments. As a comedian I just saw intoned--"We talk about everyone but ourselves and accuse them of being like us: an authoritarian oligarchy."
"3. Cooperation between countries « Groups twenty » plays a crucial role in determining the course that the world will take. Obstacles remain for the growth and stability of the global economy. During many years of cascades of challenges and crises have reversed progress in implementation of Agenda 2030 and achievement of related Goals in the field of Sustainable Development ( SDG ). Global greenhouse gas emissions continue grow, with climate change, loss of biodiversity, pollution environment, drought, land degradation and desertification threaten life people and their livelihoods. Rising commodity prices, including food and energy, affects the increase in the cost of living. Such global challenges such as poverty and inequality, climate change, pandemics and conflict disproportionately affect women and children,as well as the most vulnerable segments of the population."
Now perhaps objections raised in the alternative press about Agenda 2030 and 'Sustainable Development' are overblown. But I do find the emphasis on climate change as a principal driver of global development policies highly suspect and given all the BRICS and UN documents lead with this agenda, color me skeptical. Indeed, it makes me suspicious of the entire multipolarity agenda as quite possibly some sort of 'one world order' con.
I for one would be grateful if you could drill down into this issue. Unquestionably it is very important, yet it is not often covered in any depth. Does it make sense for the climate that China is building hundreds of coal fired plants in coming decades whereas America is trying to shut their down? Is it good for Westerners to be diminishing their standard of living to save the planet whilst also funding undeveloped nation growth. The fairness argument is appealing, but does it add up in any reasonably consistent way? Again, it seems more like a con to me than anything else, even though have been someone against pollution, Big Business, Corporate spread, Empire, foreign bases etc. etc. all my adult life.
If the Climate Crisis is indeed as critical as espoused, why the refusal to deliver on the promised aid?
Now I know the climate's changing, but the predictive affects to-date haven't been calamitous at all. The big initial argument was to get the point across that it is indeed happening and why. But the science has always been mixed as to what will happen going forward aside from making very large generalizations. Currently, the greater threat is that of nuclear war, so my attention is on that issue. The twin issues of energy and climate will be written about at some point by me, but I can't say when that will happen. Perhaps when my personal life sorts itself out after my grandson is born and so forth.
excellent! thanks karl... i found it interesting the early idea in the post on reforming the imf.. i can't see it happening myself... the imf has always been designed to dominate others.. as we see with the bank of international settlements - it is the very same principle in action - dominate, but don't seek any type of equal partnership.. that runs against the colonialist mindset which is to dominate.. unfortunately for the west, the jig is running out of time to continue in its present function and role.. these so called international institutions are going to have to undergo serious changes, or they will be replaced with more honest and transparent institutions that benefit everyone, as opposed to the few..
Like you, I'm confused about the attempt to reform the Bretton Woods Institutions other than it's been a goal for decades. Now the aim is to move on beyond them, but the attempts at reform have continued and apparently have finally gained some traction. The WTO issues seem to be somewhat different, although the blocking entity is the same. The issue is the Bretton Woods Institutions will remain alive because of previous actions--loans and such. How this all shakes-out is unclear; so, we just need to watch and see what happens.
Já comentei!
Finalmente a tradição chegou em português, a tradução foi interrompida no meio.
Como domino o inglês continuei. Contudo entre as pessoas que compartilhei apenas um compreenderá.
Lamento, mas entendo.
A declaração foi, inesperadamente, animadora e o grande Lavrov, imbatível nas respostas!
Vamos em frente!
Parabéns!
"...who did not allow the activities of the structure created to solve the problems of the world economy and finance to be turned into a kind of "politicized circle"." My Russian isn't up to snuff but I believe a more literal translation would be " to be turned into a kind of 'political circle jerk'!"
Thank you for this. It looked like maybe the US would be able to make some moves with Xi and Putin absent but in fact the opposite happened; the Global South is making its agenda felt and finding its footing in both establishing and articulating its post-colonialist mutual alignment. There is some sort of see-saw effect: as one side is rising the other is falling. I believe at some point this will manifest in the West as domestic upheaval during which some sort of paradigmatic regime change will unfold. Whether it will be a consolidation of totalitarian type technocracy or a renewal of 'liberal' sovereignty based on traditional values promoting self-governance and conservative smaller-government emphasis on family, nation, country and God remains to be seen. The battle lines are even now being drawn as an increasingly powerful Centralized State begins to persecute and marginalize its political opposition in the name of 'defending democracy from fascists', meaning people who don't vote the way they want.
And as the West crumples from increasingly internal turmoil, the RoW will move forward quite nicely, enjoying a clear growth mode. One article I was skimming a few days ago was wondering out loud how Russia could possibly 'really' want to disconnect from the West, that it will lose too much wealth that way. But to me it looks like there will soon be a historic boom in Central Eurasia (where apparently the Western Empire is still trying to sow chaos but it's not often reported) which will benefit Russia hugely as both neighbour and partner. Indeed, it might end up being the main driver of world economic growth this coming century.
Meanwhile, the nature of all societies world wide continues to evolve in a shared overall gestalt which has been driven by the Industrial Revolution of 150 years ago. Here there is increasing convergence even as diplomatic and financial divergence is currently under way. All major nations are about to release CBDC's and even recent Russian statements indicate that they are anticipating this will be connected to the BIS somehow. How this all shakes out of course remains to be seen but it looks like there will some sort of universal system along Managerialist lines, albeit with regional differences that terrain, culture and language demand.
Interesting times. Thank you for your substack. Though I am always wanting to read more about what you think about things, not only statements by other world leaders. Although I generally think your take on Russia and China is too benign, even hagiographic, I greatly value how you track the multipolarity emergence and have learned much.
After the Age of Plunder will come the Age of Repentance or so it seems at this point in time. Twenty years ago, a judgement was arrived at positing to position yourself somewhere within the economy of needs, not the wants associated with discretionary spending that was predicted to diminish. I don't see any reason to alter that judgement, at least within the West. In "Foundation", Asimov put forth the notion that those inhabiting Trantor--the Empire's center--had forgotten how to operate the basic means of its support--Atomics as he termed it. And Atomics provided the energy for the Empire's entire basis. The West has essentially renounced the use of Atomics, while the RoW is advancing its use and its efficiency. And the same can be said for other areas of political-economy. In "Killing the Host," Hudson told us what and who was killing the Empire; and unlike with his "Super Imperialism," the elites turned a blind eye to that set of truths--and that was eight years ago.
I see energy as the key element as the century moves forward along with nations having participatory governments. As a comedian I just saw intoned--"We talk about everyone but ourselves and accuse them of being like us: an authoritarian oligarchy."
From the Declaration:
"3. Cooperation between countries « Groups twenty » plays a crucial role in determining the course that the world will take. Obstacles remain for the growth and stability of the global economy. During many years of cascades of challenges and crises have reversed progress in implementation of Agenda 2030 and achievement of related Goals in the field of Sustainable Development ( SDG ). Global greenhouse gas emissions continue grow, with climate change, loss of biodiversity, pollution environment, drought, land degradation and desertification threaten life people and their livelihoods. Rising commodity prices, including food and energy, affects the increase in the cost of living. Such global challenges such as poverty and inequality, climate change, pandemics and conflict disproportionately affect women and children,as well as the most vulnerable segments of the population."
Now perhaps objections raised in the alternative press about Agenda 2030 and 'Sustainable Development' are overblown. But I do find the emphasis on climate change as a principal driver of global development policies highly suspect and given all the BRICS and UN documents lead with this agenda, color me skeptical. Indeed, it makes me suspicious of the entire multipolarity agenda as quite possibly some sort of 'one world order' con.
I for one would be grateful if you could drill down into this issue. Unquestionably it is very important, yet it is not often covered in any depth. Does it make sense for the climate that China is building hundreds of coal fired plants in coming decades whereas America is trying to shut their down? Is it good for Westerners to be diminishing their standard of living to save the planet whilst also funding undeveloped nation growth. The fairness argument is appealing, but does it add up in any reasonably consistent way? Again, it seems more like a con to me than anything else, even though have been someone against pollution, Big Business, Corporate spread, Empire, foreign bases etc. etc. all my adult life.
The key issue raised in the Declaration and by Oxfam earlier this year is the lack of delivery on the many promises of aid--Oxfam put it at $13 Trillion which is far beyond what the Declaration claimed, https://www.oxfamamerica.org/press/press-releases/g7-owes-13-trillion-to-the-global-south/
If the Climate Crisis is indeed as critical as espoused, why the refusal to deliver on the promised aid?
Now I know the climate's changing, but the predictive affects to-date haven't been calamitous at all. The big initial argument was to get the point across that it is indeed happening and why. But the science has always been mixed as to what will happen going forward aside from making very large generalizations. Currently, the greater threat is that of nuclear war, so my attention is on that issue. The twin issues of energy and climate will be written about at some point by me, but I can't say when that will happen. Perhaps when my personal life sorts itself out after my grandson is born and so forth.