Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Webster Groves who wrote (61876)	3/13/2010 1:04:52 AM
From: energyplay	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218880

>>> " You have a distinctly un-American point of view of world affairs.... " <<< Maybe objective ? or maybe are you using hemispheric sense of the term American ? *** One of the views that I am trying to get across is that the UK, like the Russians, the Germans, the Japanese, and the Belgians, are one of the nastier colonial powers, with an extensive track record of aggression. That is not to say that I would care to be subject to the French, Chinese, or Dutch empires, but they appear to have a better percentage track record on unprovoked attacks. * Brazil now has possibly the most efficient gas centrifuge technology, and some current Uranium production. This could give them a quick path to gun device fission weapon, like the one South Africa was able to build for about 60 million a numbers of years ago. They also have lots of cheap electricity. They could produce a small number of deliverable weapons - say 10 inside of 2 years, maybe as short as 15 months. Even shorter, if some of the test and engineering is done earlier, such as aerodynamic testing the actual bomb or rocket. However, a small number of weapons is still not equal to the deterrent power that China has with 35 or so MIRV long range missiles, some intermediate missiles, and bomber aircraft. *** Since it is your favorite South American country, I would rather hear YOUR evaluation.

To: Webster Groves who wrote (61876)	3/13/2010 12:51:06 PM
From: elmatador	1 Recommendation Respond to of 218880

The financial and economic crisis has permanently changed economic policy making in the world. The decisions made in the Pittsburgh Summit last September changed the global framework of economic policy making significantly. Without going to details I want to raise following issues agreed in the meeting. * First, in the future the G 20 will be the premier forum for international economic cooperation. Now there is a representative forum to provide a coordinated response to the economic and financial crisis. * Second, the meeting agreed on a framework for sustainable and balanced global growth. Now the countries have committed to a collective surveillance process. * Third, in the meeting it was agreed to change the voting shares of IMF and World Bank, especially to the benefit of emerging and developing countries. * Fourth, it was agreed about the reform of the international financial regulatory system. Here it is a question of strengthening the roles and resources of the IMF and the Financial stability Board. * Fifth, the meeting agreed to reduce the development gap among the poorest countries by agreeing on the establishment of new trust fund by the World Bank. * Sixth,the participants committed to improve energy market operations and phase out fossil fuel subsidies. * Seventh, it was made the commitment to fight trade protectionism by calling for fast finalisation of Doha trade negotiations. Finland - Current policy challenges in the aftermath of global economic crisis - some European viewpoints isria.com