2Settimana
EMs are attractively valued after years of underperformance.
But why do you think the future belongs to the BRICS?
But why do you think the future belongs to the BRICS?
•
22
•2Settimana
@Epi Demographics, rising prosperity, attractive social models that are not as wealth-intensive as ours, good downward networking with countries that will also benefit from increased prosperity growth. BRICS as a new heavyweight in a multipolar world order.
•
11
•2Settimana
@Investbytest You're really buying into the narratives of the new would-be hegemons like Xi or Putin. Of the BRICS, at least R and C have a massive demographic problem. The corruption and legal uncertainty in most BRICS states is massive and systematically deliberate. And finally, the demand for a multipolar world order means nothing other than the demand for the end of the international legal and economic order. The fact that the BRICS are united by nothing other than a rejection of universalism and a return to national egoism can be seen at the BRICS summit.
In other words: the West may be consumed by prosperity, but the BRICS are historically and systematically standing in their own way of capitalizing on it. Just my opinion.
(I am currently invested in EM myself with 3x leverage).
In other words: the West may be consumed by prosperity, but the BRICS are historically and systematically standing in their own way of capitalizing on it. Just my opinion.
(I am currently invested in EM myself with 3x leverage).
•
44
•2Settimana
@Epi Well, that's quite a lot of theses with very few arguments.
1) Yes, Russia's and China's demographics are not ideal. But it's also not disproportionately bad compared to the western world. China's abandonment of the 1-child policy in particular is having a statistical effect. Moreover, the BRICS countries have closer relations with countries that are demographically very well positioned. China as a major player in Africa and India as an intimate business partner of Vietnam, Bangladesh and Indonesia are just two examples.
2. there is corruption and legal uncertainty. Also on a much broader scale than in the West. It is difficult to use this fact as an argument. On the one hand, this could be a decreasing trend. On the other hand, it is questionable to what extent a certain degree of corruption and legal uncertainty actually causes lasting economic damage. A difficult topic. Personally, I believe that corruption is on the decline. I know from my working environment that so-called developing countries in particular are increasingly bringing in legal experts from abroad to structure the domestic legal system, especially in order to create legal certainty. But I think the basic assumption that the BRICS are ultimately corrupt and legally unstable and therefore economically uninteresting is definitely wrong.
3. The end of the international legal and economic order? I don't understand the point and again it just sounds like a thesis. Of course the economic order will change. That is already in the term: multipolar world order. Change is inherent in the term. Why should the legal order change? Or when does it not change?
4. I also don't know whether your conclusion from the previous theses is valid. Even assuming that your theses are correct, the conclusion does not hold. Or where do you deduce that historically and systematically the BRICS fail to generate capital from the weakness of the West? There is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Growing GDP, growing prosperity, growing influence in international organizations, the creation of their own forums.
1) Yes, Russia's and China's demographics are not ideal. But it's also not disproportionately bad compared to the western world. China's abandonment of the 1-child policy in particular is having a statistical effect. Moreover, the BRICS countries have closer relations with countries that are demographically very well positioned. China as a major player in Africa and India as an intimate business partner of Vietnam, Bangladesh and Indonesia are just two examples.
2. there is corruption and legal uncertainty. Also on a much broader scale than in the West. It is difficult to use this fact as an argument. On the one hand, this could be a decreasing trend. On the other hand, it is questionable to what extent a certain degree of corruption and legal uncertainty actually causes lasting economic damage. A difficult topic. Personally, I believe that corruption is on the decline. I know from my working environment that so-called developing countries in particular are increasingly bringing in legal experts from abroad to structure the domestic legal system, especially in order to create legal certainty. But I think the basic assumption that the BRICS are ultimately corrupt and legally unstable and therefore economically uninteresting is definitely wrong.
3. The end of the international legal and economic order? I don't understand the point and again it just sounds like a thesis. Of course the economic order will change. That is already in the term: multipolar world order. Change is inherent in the term. Why should the legal order change? Or when does it not change?
4. I also don't know whether your conclusion from the previous theses is valid. Even assuming that your theses are correct, the conclusion does not hold. Or where do you deduce that historically and systematically the BRICS fail to generate capital from the weakness of the West? There is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Growing GDP, growing prosperity, growing influence in international organizations, the creation of their own forums.
•
11
•
2Settimana
@Investbytest "attractive social models"? 🥳 You've obviously NEVER been to China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia... Or are you a fundamental rights masochist?
••
2Settimana
@Dividenden-Penner I've been to some of the countries you mentioned. And I am a constitutional patriot by profession. No, I find our Western society much more attractive to live in, if that's your question.
•
11
•