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: TobagoJack who wrote (149485)	7/2/2019 2:39:35 AM
From: TobagoJack	Respond to of 218054

Re <<.>> I counted on the post to mark at least one predictable rec, and I was satisfied. Mean time I note South Africa trending towards failed-state, and Brazil did not make the powwow, and so BRICS is now, apparently, RIC There should be a BC meeting in Beijing in October. Let’s wait n see zerohedge.com Escobar: Contrast Between Russia-India-China & Trump Could Not Be Starker Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Saker blog, The most important trilateral at the G20 in Osaka was confined to a shoddy environment unworthy of Japan’s unrivaled aesthetic minimalism. Japan excels in perfect planning and execution. So it’s hard to take this setup as an unfortunate “accident.” At least the – unofficial – Russia-India-China summit at the sidelines of the G20 transcended the fate of an interior decorator deserving to commit seppuku. Leaders of these three countries met in virtual secrecy. The very few media representatives present in the shabby room were soon invited to leave. Presidents Putin, Xi and Modi were flanked by streamlined teams who barely found enough space to sit down. There were no leaks. Cynics would rather joke that the room may have been bugged anyway. After all, Xi is able to call Putin and Modi to Beijing anytime he wants to discuss serious business. New Delhi is spinning that Modi took the initiative to meet in Osaka. That’s not exactly the case. Osaka is a culmination of a long process led by Xi and Putin to seduce Modi into a serious Eurasia integration triangular road map, consolidated at their previous meeting last month at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Bishkek. Now Russia-India-China (RIC) is fully back in business; the next meeting is set for the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok in September. In their introductory remarks, Putin, Xi and Modi made it clear that RIC is all about configuring, in Putin’s words, an “indivisible security architecture” for Eurasia. Modi – very much in a Macron vein – stressed the multilateral effort to fight climate change, and complained that the global economy is being ruled by a “one-sided” dictate, emphasizing the necessity of a reform of the World Trade Organization. Putin went a step ahead, insisting, “our countries are in favor of preserving the system of international relations, whose core is the UN Charter and the rule of law. We uphold such important principles of interstate relations as respect for sovereignty and non-interference in domestic affairs.” Putin clearly underlined the geopolitical interconnection of the UN, BRICS, SCO and G20, plus “strengthening the authority of the WTO” and the International Monetary Fund as the “paragon of a modern and just multipolar world that denies sanctions as legitimate actions.” The Russia-India-China contrast with the Trump administration could not be starker. Those ‘tremendous assets’BRICS, as it stands, is dead. There was an “official,” pro-forma BRICS meeting before the RIC. But it’s no secret both Putin and Xi completely distrust Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, regarded as a Trump neocolonial asset. Ahead of his bilateral with Trump, Bolsonaro peddled Brazil’s mineral wealth, claiming the country may now export “niobium trinkets.” Well, that’s certainly less controversial than the Brazilian military sherpa arrested in Spain for carrying industrial quantities of cocaine (36kg) in the presidential plane, definitely ruining the after-hours party time in Osaka. Later on, Trump eagerly praised Brazil’s “tremendous assets,” now being fully privatized to the benefit of US companies. Xi, as he addressed the BRICS meeting, denounced protectionism and called for a stronger WTO. BRICS nations, he said, should “increase our resilience and capability to cope with external risks.” Putin went one up. Apart from denouncing “protectionist” tendencies in global trade, he called for bilateral trade in national currencies bypassing the US dollar – mirroring a commitment by the Russia-China strategic partnership. Russia-China, via Finance Minister Anton Siluanov and head of the People’s Bank of China, Yi Gang, have signed an agreement to switch to rubles and yuan in bilateral trade, starting with energy and agriculture, and increase cross-currency settlements by 50% in the next few years. There will be a concerted effort to increasingly bypass SWIFT, using the Russian System for Transfer of Financial Messages (SPFS) and the Chinese Cross-Border Inter-Bank Payments System (CIPS). Sooner or later Russia-China will entice India to join. Moscow has excellent bilateral relations with both Beijing and New Delhi, and is decisively playing the role of privileged messenger. The mini-trade war against New Delhi launched by the Trump administration – including the loss of India’s special trade status and punishment for buying Russian S-400 missile systems – is quickening the pace of the process. India, by the way, will pay for the S-400s in euros. There were no leaks whatsoever from Russia-India-China about Iran. But diplomats say that was a key theme of the discussion. Russia is already – covertly – helping Iran on myriad levels. India has an existential choice to make: keep buying Iranian oil or say goodbye to Iran’s strategic help, via the Chabahar port, to facilitate India’s mini-Silk Road to Afghanistan and Central Asia. China sees Iran as a key node of the New Silk Roads, or Belt and Road Initiative. Russia sees Iran as essential for strategic stability in Southwest Asia – a key theme of the Putin-Trump bilateral, which also discussed Syria and Ukraine. The leaders of RIC – Russian President Vladimir Putin, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping – hold a meeting on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Osaka on June 28, 2019. Photo: Mikhail Klimentyev / Sputnik / AFP RIC or Belt and Road?Whatever the psyops tactics employed by Trump, Russia-India-China is also directly implicated in the massive short and long-term ramifications of the Trump-Xi bilateral in Osaka. The Big Picture is not going to change; the Trump administration is betting on re-routing global supply chains out of China, while Beijing advances full speed ahead with its Belt and Road Initiative. Trump is heavily distrusted across Europe – as Brussels knows the EU is the target of another imminent trade war. Meanwhile, with over 60 nations committed to myriad Belt and Road projects, and with the Eurasia Economic Union also interlinked with Belt and Road, Beijing knows it’s just a matter of time before the whole of the EU hits the BRI highway. There’s no evidence that India may suddenly join Belt and Road projects. The geopolitical lure of “Indo-Pacific” – essentially just another strategy for containment of China – looms large. That’s good old imperial Divide and Rule – and all the major players know it. Yet India, now on the record, is starting to spin that Indo-Pacific is not “against somebody.” India getting deeper into RIC does not imply getting closer to Belt and Road. It’s time for Modi to rise to the occasion; ultimately, he will decide which way the geoeconomic pendulum swings.

To: TobagoJack who wrote (149485)	7/2/2019 6:39:27 AM
From: TobagoJack	Respond to of 218054

am writing to the dot ... it is fun the Robert Lighthizer, being mathematically challenged and history uniformed, trying to apply a formulae that worked for conquered Japan, but on to near-peer / peering China and suspect MSM actually of the belief that <<Apparently, negotiators need to come up with a new formula that lets Beijing save face. But that will take a long time, testing Wall Street’s expectations>> There is a fundamental misunderstanding. Team china does not need to save face. Team china already noted, "do not say we did not warn you". Clear that bob did not get the message. No matter. Wall Street can wait. Overarching macro is overarching macro, and overarches. The issue between teams America and China is that each is asking the other, "are you going to cooperate?". The question is an important one, and had to be answered sooner or later, and better sooner than later. As of now both answering in the negative. That is the macro, as the universe gets cleaver-ed into two parallel realities, unavoidable. https://www.forbes.com/ Trade War: America Is Trying To Turn China Into Another Japan Panos Mourdoukoutas America is trying to turn China into another Japan. When it comes to trade relations between the two sides, that is. Washington wants to be in control of US-China trade. The same way it wanted to be in control of the US-Japan trade back in the 1980s. That’s has been obvious from the very beginning of the trade negotiations, as was written previously here. But it became more obvious after the breaking down of the negotiations back in May. The sticky issue between the two sides isn’t the negotiation targets. Beijing has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to cut tariffs on some American products and raise import targets on others. It’s rather how a trade agreement should be enforced, so Washington gets measurable outcomes out of China. That was also the sticky point in trade negotiations between America and Japan back in the 1980s. And America came up with the formula: the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act. Here’s how it happened. In November 1983, the Regan administration began talks with Japan regarding the opening of its capital markets and the appreciation of the yen, an effort that led to the Plaza Accord of September 1985. Parallel to these efforts, in early in 1985, the two sides opened talks on another front, the Market-Oriented Sector –Sensitive negotiations. The talks covered four specific areas of trade friction: electronics, medical equipment, telecommunications, and pharmaceuticals. One year later, in 1986, the two sides agreed to establish the Structural Economic Dialogue, a preface to the Structural Impediments Initiative, which addressed trade issues for specific products on a regular basis (six months). In 1988, the US Congress enacted the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act, in essence placing the US-Japan trade under Washington’s control. Eventually, Japan had no choice but to surrender to American demands. But China isn’t Japan when it comes to yielding to outside pressure. Even if that comes at a great cost. At least that’s what it has demonstrated during its long history. That’s why Beijing doesn’t seem to be willing to let America apply the formula it applied to Japan, as trade negotiations are about to resume. At least, that’s the message from the official Chinese agencies, following the Osaka meeting. “China’s official news agency quoted President Xi after the meeting saying that “negotiations should be based on equality and mutual respect,” a thinly veiled reiteration of China’s opposition to US demands for an agreement that would allow the US to enact punitive tariffs against China to enforce a future agreement that China could not retaliate against,” says PNC Financial Services Group Senior Economist Bill Adams. Then there’s China’s rejection of America’s demand to have the trade agreement codified. “China also rejects the US demand to codify a trade agreement in Chinese law without a corresponding US law committing the US to permanently forgo tariffs,” explains Adam. “The Trump administration has proposed the US side of the agreement be exclusively a commitment by the executive branch, giving President Trump and future presidents discretion over reinstating tariffs on Chinese imports.” Apparently, negotiators need to come up with a new formula that lets Beijing save face. But that will take a long time, testing Wall Street’s expectations.