Economics

[Haykakan]

Re: Economics

THE STRUGGLE FOR A MULTIPOLAR WORLD IS GETTING INTENSE

08.07.2015 Author: Valery Kulikov

Column: Politics
Region: Russia in the World

On July 8-10 the capital of Bashkiria Ufa will be housing two summits
at the same time - BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

Since the SCO summit will be held back to back with the BRICS summit,
it will only increase the individual importance of each of them since
the leaders of these two largest associations will be able to hold
a joint meeting.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation- is a regional international
organization that was founded in 2001 by China, Russia, Kazakhstan,
Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. Its initial objective was
the coordination of mutual efforts to combat terrorism, separatism
and extremism in Central Asia, but later on SCO started addressing
economic matters, providing a platform to promote cooperation in
such sectors as energy, transport, agriculture, telecommunications,
science and technology, humanitarian efforts and many others. As the
authority of SCO grows, many countries have expressed their desire to
join the organization, in particular, applications for full membership
were filled by Pakistan, Iran and India, while Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Bangladesh and Syria seek observer status.

BRICS is built by five very influential countries: Brazil, Russia,
India, China and South Africa. One can even say - five civilizations,
some major ones in the world. It is characterized by a common approach
to international security issues, common views of the financial and
economic architecture of the modern world. BRICS states are the states
with rapidly growing economies, which, according to some analysts,
will overtake the "Big Seven" by 2050. It is a truly enormous power
that houses more than 43% of the world's population, more than 20%
of world's GDP. Therefore, we are talking about a truly significant
part of the world.

According to the official BRICS site, Russia's President Vladimir
Putin hopes to reach an agreement on the launch of the Development
Bank along with reaching the final decision on the establishment of
a pool of foreign currency reserves in Ufa. The initial idea on the
creation of such a pool was announced a year ago in the Brazilian
city of Fortaleza. The purpose of such a tool is to reduce the impact
of currency fluctuations on BRICS countries. Previously this task
was fullfilled by the IMF, however, due to the fact that the already
limited resources of the IMF are spent on strengthening euro and other
national currencies of the developed countries, the establishment of
a currencies pool for BRICS seems like a timely decision. The initial
size of the pool will be 100 billion dollars. It has already been
announced that China will make the largest contribution by giving 41
billion dollars.

It is expected that every member of BRICS will allocate a total of
10 billion dollars for the creation of the BRICS development bank
- so at some point its capital must reach 100 billion dollars. The
headquarters of the Bank will be located in Shanghai, while a renowned
India's financier occupying the position of the first chairman. Thus,
this bank is being created to finance infrastructure projects in BRICS
countries along with other developing countries. But BRICS states are
not the only ones that are capable to participate in the founding
of the bank and the reserve fund, other emerging economies such as
Mexico, Indonesia and Argentina will be able to take part in it too.

These new financial entities are but the first step in overcoming
the Western domination in the banking sector that should allow the
creation of an alternative for the dollar economic model.

The defining feature of BRICS is that each member country is
representing a number of its regional partners, while it remains
a regional leader. BRICS summit in Durban (South Africa) became a
platform for a broad cooperation of all the countries to the south
of the Sahara desert. The next summit in Fortaleza (Brazil) was
a platform for the broad cooperation of Latin America countries. A
similar platform will be provided in Ufa, since a number of CIS states
has already expressed their willingness to participate in the summit.

The West fears that BRICS is getting stronger, even despite the fact
is going through tough times due the impact sanctions had on Russian
economy. For the West the most dangerous thing about BRICS is that
it is capable of torpedoing the Bretton Woods system, and above all
the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, World Trade Organization.

This system has not been built overnight and the United States still
has the final say in it.

The increasing importance of the yuan as a reserve currency causes some
serious discontent among American ruling elites. The sitting United
States Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew has already stated that
new players are challenging American leadership in the international
financial world. He urged the US Congress to reform the IMF for
it to be able to withstand the Chinese threat. While witnessing as
Washington's most loyal allies are packing up and leave to stop being
exploited, knowing that they were the basis of America's dominance,
Lew added that Washington's international influence is seriously
threatened.

Indeed, the world has changed, the share in the GDP rates are
completely different and the only thing that is allegedly keeping
dollar afloat is "the power of American weapons". It can not and
will not be the basis of the US dominance anymore. For far too long
America has been living in debt that it is unable to pay, stealing
the wealth of the world in exchange for green papers with images of
the dead American presidents.

That is why BRICS is nothing more than a collective leap towards a
multipolar world that keeps Washington irritated. The White House
considers BRICS a major threat to the hegemony of the United States.

In response Washington is using economic and propaganda means,
that have already been unleashed against Russia, along with Brazil,
India and China. Leon Panetta, a former director of the Central
Intelligence Agency, at a PBS show has openly stated the need to
resist the consolidation of BRICS countries that are transforming
themselves in a single geo-political mechanism. After noting that
Americans live in a world where there's new powers such as China,
Brazil and India, not to mention, of course, of Russia, challenge
American hegemony, Leon Panetta urged Washington to ensure that BRICS
"would not undermine the stability of the world."

Sean Goforth, a professor at Coastal Carolina University has even
coined a new term - VIRUS (by using the initial letters: Venezuela,
Iran, Russia): "Venezuela, Iran and Russia - is a virus that threatens
the United States and Western order."

As Washington witnesses the growing deterioration of the unipolar world
order, it is actively trying to mobilize its allies to maintain the
fragmentation of the world in order to prevent the formation of new
centers of power, including BRICS. Each member of this unit is being
treated individually. With India, the US is trying to draw it into
its military-political orbit, with China the White House is building
tensions in Southeast Asia, South Africa is being pushed aside, Brazil
is being surronded with pro-American regimes of Colombia, Paraguay,
and Uruguay. With Russia Washington has probably used every single
trick it has in its book, from instignating Ukrainian nationalism to
force a civil war in the Ukraine and fueling fascism in the Baltic,
to attempts to drive a wedge between Russia and Kazakhstan and the
usage of the North Caucasian bandit underground to its best interests.

However, history puts everything in its place. Today people of the
world understand that they should pay no heed to the provocations that
are being organized by the White House, instead they would be better
off pursuing the ideology of a multipolar world, embodied in BRICS.

Valery Kulikov, political analyst, exclusively for the online magazine
"New Eastern Outlook".

First
appeared:http://journal-neo.org/2015/07/08/th...tting-intense/

[Haykakan]

Re: Economics

Here is a great example of how out of touch and indifferent our leaders are regarding the American people. Here is a presidential candidate (the younger Bush brother) telling the people who work more hours then anyone that they need to work longer hours to improve our economy. It is amazing how idiots like this become so powerful.


Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said in an interview Wednesday that “people need to work longer hours” to help grow the economy.

According to ABC News, Bush was asked a question about tax reform during an interview live streamed on Periscope, and said he believes the U.S. can achieve 4 percent growth.

“Which means we have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows,” Bush continued. “It means that people need to work longer hours.”

The Democratic National Committee said Bush’s remarks were “easily one of the most out-of-touch comments we’ve heard so far this cycle,” according to ABC.


According to a transcript sent by his campaign, Bush clarified his comments Wednesday night after a town hall event in New Hampshire.

Asked whether he was saying “somebody working two jobs needs to be working even more time,” Bush replied, “Absolutely not. Their incomes need to grow.”

He went on to say that “the simple fact is people are really struggling. So giving people a chance to work longer hours has got to be part of the answer. If not, you are going to see people lose hope. And that’s where we are today.”

[Eddo211]

Re: Economics

Aristocrats whipping the slaves...........hell even the Egyptian workers didn't work at night.

[Haykakan]

Re: Economics

Congressman screams at Yellen: 'You did nothing!'



CNBC CNBC
CNBC



Everett Rosenfeld

4 hrs ago















For the first time in series' history, all six Sharks appear together in the Tank to discuss their favorite memories over the first 100 episodes. The Sharks reveal why they participate year after year on the show, and celebrate with a cake-cutting and champagne toast.

10 secrets you'd never guess about 'Shark Tank'


No. 1 Best State To Make A Living: Texas

The 10 Best And Worst States To Make A Living In 2015











Rep. Sean Duffy, R-Wis., lashed out at Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen on Wednesday, accusing her and the Fed of willfully hiding documents that have been subpoenaed for an ongoing congressional leak probe.












Popular Searches





Receptos Inc


RCPT




▲

230.08


+22.90

+11.05%





Bank of America Corporation


BAC




▲

17.68


+0.55

+3.21%





Netflix Inc


NFLX




▼

98.13


-2.24

-2.23%





Amazon.com Inc


AMZN




▼

461.19


-4.38

-0.94%




"You did absolutely nothing—zero. ... You did nothing to perpetuate an investigation that would lead us to the truth," Duffy charged. "Madam Chair, it appears that you are the one who is jeopardizing—or the Fed is the one who is jeopardizing—this investigation. Am I wrong?"

Yellen, who maintains that the Fed cannot release requested documents without jeopardizing the Justice Department's criminal investigation, replied by saying, "We want to see this investigation succeed." She said she plans to turn over all the requested documents once the investigations by the DOJ and the Fed's inspector general are completed.


© Provided by CNBC
Yellen, speaking slowly, told Duffy that the Fed had a clear procedure to follow.

He responded: "If anyone is trying to sweep this under the rug, it's the Fed. It is Congress who is trying to bring light to this." The congressman emphasized that the Fed has no legal authority to withhold the relevant documents.

At issue is the disclosure of confidential information about a 2012 meeting of Fed policymakers allegedly to a firm that sells analysis and reporting to investors.


The fiery exchange occurred while Yellen presented a monetary policy report to the House Financial Services Committee.

[Haykakan]

Re: Economics

This is worth a read

http://www.groong.org/news/msg553144.html

[Haykakan]

Re: Economics

Found this interesting article about Ukraine's debt.


back print

WORLD

Ukraine’s Debt to Russia: Detonator for Global Financial Chaos

Valentin KATASONOV | 11.11.2015 | 08:03




The $3-billion loan Russia provided to Ukraine in December of 2013 will mature in a month and a half. Kiev has made the decision to overlook what it owes to Russia. Such daring, or perhaps it should be called audacity, can be explained by the fact that the Ukrainian government senses that it has the support of Washington. And the US is even working to get Kiev’s financial chicanery blessed by the IMF.

According to the National Bank of Ukraine, that country’s international reserves now amount to about $13 billion. Kiev has the ability to pay – just not the desire. But even if Kiev did not have that $13 billion, it could get the $3 billion it needs to pay Moscow, from that very same IMF. As long as Ukraine is not in full-fledged default, the IMF can send Kiev the next scheduled tranche of its bailout loan under the current agreement that was signed in the spring of 2015. The fact that this option is not being discussed shows once again that Washington is not looking for a simple solution. It needs to muddy the waters as much as possible.

With manic energy, the US is mounting an assault on the International Monetary Fund, demanding an urgent review of the rules of lending, so that the altered rules will allow Kiev to forgo paying its debt to Moscow at the end of the year without painful repercussions. But if Kiev refuses to pay, this will only precipitate a financial crisis. And not just in Ukraine, but all over the world. I’m not kidding.

If, as the result of backroom manipulations (“rule changes”), the IMF endorses Kiev’s position and rules that Ukraine’s debt to Russia is not an “official,” government-to-government loan, but rather a private one, then this would seem to be in Kiev’s interest. A refusal to repay private (commercial) debt would be considered only a partial default, which would not prevent the IMF from continuing to transfer loan funds to Ukraine. But in that event Russia would have a wide range of retaliatory measures to choose from. I will list only two.

The first option. Filing a claim with the British court system (either an ordinary court or one specifically for international arbitration). The 2013 loan agreement stipulates that any disputes between the parties are to be reviewed in the courts of the United Kingdom in accordance with British law. Moscow’s lawsuit must challenge Kiev’s actions and demand confirmation that the Russian loan falls under the category of “official” debt. Experts believe that any ruling by the British court (assuming politics do not intervene) would be unequivocal: the debt is official.

The second option. Agreeing that the loan to Ukraine falls under the category of private (“commercial”) debt. And using the court to demand that Kiev repay 100% of the debt. That would produce an interesting situation. Kiev has happily reported that its debt to its creditors has been successfully restructured. Twenty percent of the debt has been written off, the repayment deadlines have been extended, and the interest rate has been raised. Kiev claimed that the creditors holding 75% of its private debt attended the final negotiations in London where the agreement was reached. Those who hold the remaining 25% of the private debt being restructured did not participate. The Ukrainian government places Russia – to which about 17% of the private debt is owed, according to the Ukrainians’ calculations – within this 25%. The financial markets have seen many recent cases of debt restructuring, but, as a rule, the creditors holding over 90% of the debt have been involved. But there are no guarantees, even with such a high figure.



It’s likely that in other eras one might have expected some comments or even official statements from the International Monetary Fund over what Kiev has stridently called its debt “restructuring”. In fact this is nothing but blasphemy, of which IMF staffers are well aware, but they are silent. Russia should not sit silently, but act. If in the last ten years creditors holding merely 7-8% of Argentina’s debt (and they were speculators and financial raiders) were able to force a review of the restructuring of Argentina’s enormous debt, then Russia has far more justification to do so with regard to Ukraine’s debt.

This is, first of all, because in contrast to those financial vultures, Russia is a bona fide creditor. Russia did not buy “junk” on the secondary market. The deal was a placement of 100% Ukrainian debt securities, sold on the Irish Stock Exchange, issued at par, and with a coupon rate that had been reduced by more than 50%.

Second, even if we assume that Ukraine’s debt to Russia is private, Russia holds about 17% of all of Ukraine’s private debt, as mentioned above. That is a very significant stake.

Third, it was extremely difficult to force the private creditors, who spent the entire summer of 2015 at the negotiating table, to write off part of Ukraine’s debt (20% of the principal). According to our sources, the negotiations with Kiev were led by some hard-boiled financial vultures (chief among them – Franklin Templeton). They were forced to agree to a meal of cabbage instead of red meat. Therefore, the private creditors can at any time disavow the agreement reached in London to write off part of the debt. And Moscow can provide them with the warrant to do this, with its demand through the English courts for 100% repayment of the Eurobond debt. A game called “Ukraine’s debt to Russia is private” could be a real nail-biter.

It is said that the IMF sees the trap into which Ukraine could fall if its debt is deemed private. Experts who are carefully following the uproar over Ukraine’s debt tend to think that the IMF is still unlikely to change the status of Kiev’s debt to Moscow. Instead, it will probably be decided that just because an IMF member is declared to be in default on an “official” debt to a particular government, this does not affect the fund’s ability to lend to the country that has been declared to be in such “partial” default.



If the IMF does come to this decision, it will be extremely difficult to predict the consequences. The mind boggles. Such a decision would cast aside a rule that has been in force throughout the fund’s history – that sovereign debt is a sacred cow. Any attempt to butcher this “cow” would make that state a pariah in the system of international finance. The slaughter of this sacred cow, scheduled for late November, will lead to a total paralysis of the IMF’s work and the disappearance of what are now known as sovereign loans and credits, just as the mammoths and dinosaurs vanished so long ago.

The radius of the disruption that would occur as a result of Ukraine’s refusal to pay its debt to Russia will spread very far. And Russia will also suffer, but if it plays its hand carefully it will be able to get its money back. But there will be many losers.

First of all, Ukraine. Ukraine’s refusal to pay its debt, even if it gets the next tranche from the IMF in violation of the current rules, will only prolong the throes of Kiev’s financial death. In my estimation, it will only delay the inevitable by a few months.

Second, the International Monetary Fund. During its six months of working with Ukraine, it has broken all the rules that had been formulated and fine-tuned over the course of decades. All the transgressions and chicanery that the IMF has allowed itself when dealing with Ukraine are being piled on top of the fund’s own reform crisis, now in its fifth year. The IMF will celebrate its 70th birthday in late December 2015, but it seems to me that the star of the party will not be around too long after the big day.

Third, the nations of continental Europe. Because Washington is forcing its allies to accept political decisions being made at the IMF in favor of Ukraine and in violation of the current rules, their reputation will be seriously affected. After all, the board of directors will vote on the decision to change the fund’s rules, with the support of America’s European allies. And it seems they have nowhere to turn. Madame Christine Lagarde, the fund’s managing director, claimed at the last IMF-World Bank annual meeting in Lima (Peru) that she is willing to “belly-dance” for Washington, if only the US Congress will vote to ratify the IMF’s decision to review the quotas. Paris deemed that offer inappropriate, reminding Madame Lagarde that she is not only an international official, but also a representative of France.

Fourth, Great Britain. London is already nervous, because it is in the British court system where the showdown over the ill-fated debt will begin. The loan agreement between Russia and Ukraine stipulates that British law be used to resolve any dispute. Many experts anticipate that Washington will insist that London make the “correct” ruling. London’s reputation as a center for international arbitration could be on the line. If London caves in, new issues of Eurobonds will look to other courts for guidance.

Fifth, the entire world. International financial transactions, such as issuing sovereign loans and credits, could be paralyzed. We could witness a parade of states defaulting on their sovereign debt. Innocuous “partial” defaults could mushroom into full-fledged ones. The second wave of the global financial crisis would begin. It seems that the US is pursuing the matter in order to use Ukraine’s debt to Russia as a detonator for global financial chaos.

[HyeSocialist]

Re: Economics

Found this interesting article about Ukraine's debt.


back print

WORLD

Ukraine’s Debt to Russia: Detonator for Global Financial Chaos

Valentin KATASONOV | 11.11.2015 | 08:03




The $3-billion loan Russia provided to Ukraine in December of 2013 will mature in a month and a half. Kiev has made the decision to overlook what it owes to Russia. Such daring, or perhaps it should be called audacity, can be explained by the fact that the Ukrainian government senses that it has the support of Washington. And the US is even working to get Kiev’s financial chicanery blessed by the IMF.

According to the National Bank of Ukraine, that country’s international reserves now amount to about $13 billion. Kiev has the ability to pay – just not the desire. But even if Kiev did not have that $13 billion, it could get the $3 billion it needs to pay Moscow, from that very same IMF. As long as Ukraine is not in full-fledged default, the IMF can send Kiev the next scheduled tranche of its bailout loan under the current agreement that was signed in the spring of 2015. The fact that this option is not being discussed shows once again that Washington is not looking for a simple solution. It needs to muddy the waters as much as possible.

With manic energy, the US is mounting an assault on the International Monetary Fund, demanding an urgent review of the rules of lending, so that the altered rules will allow Kiev to forgo paying its debt to Moscow at the end of the year without painful repercussions. But if Kiev refuses to pay, this will only precipitate a financial crisis. And not just in Ukraine, but all over the world. I’m not kidding.

If, as the result of backroom manipulations (“rule changes”), the IMF endorses Kiev’s position and rules that Ukraine’s debt to Russia is not an “official,” government-to-government loan, but rather a private one, then this would seem to be in Kiev’s interest. A refusal to repay private (commercial) debt would be considered only a partial default, which would not prevent the IMF from continuing to transfer loan funds to Ukraine. But in that event Russia would have a wide range of retaliatory measures to choose from. I will list only two.

The first option. Filing a claim with the British court system (either an ordinary court or one specifically for international arbitration). The 2013 loan agreement stipulates that any disputes between the parties are to be reviewed in the courts of the United Kingdom in accordance with British law. Moscow’s lawsuit must challenge Kiev’s actions and demand confirmation that the Russian loan falls under the category of “official” debt. Experts believe that any ruling by the British court (assuming politics do not intervene) would be unequivocal: the debt is official.

The second option. Agreeing that the loan to Ukraine falls under the category of private (“commercial”) debt. And using the court to demand that Kiev repay 100% of the debt. That would produce an interesting situation. Kiev has happily reported that its debt to its creditors has been successfully restructured. Twenty percent of the debt has been written off, the repayment deadlines have been extended, and the interest rate has been raised. Kiev claimed that the creditors holding 75% of its private debt attended the final negotiations in London where the agreement was reached. Those who hold the remaining 25% of the private debt being restructured did not participate. The Ukrainian government places Russia – to which about 17% of the private debt is owed, according to the Ukrainians’ calculations – within this 25%. The financial markets have seen many recent cases of debt restructuring, but, as a rule, the creditors holding over 90% of the debt have been involved. But there are no guarantees, even with such a high figure.



It’s likely that in other eras one might have expected some comments or even official statements from the International Monetary Fund over what Kiev has stridently called its debt “restructuring”. In fact this is nothing but blasphemy, of which IMF staffers are well aware, but they are silent. Russia should not sit silently, but act. If in the last ten years creditors holding merely 7-8% of Argentina’s debt (and they were speculators and financial raiders) were able to force a review of the restructuring of Argentina’s enormous debt, then Russia has far more justification to do so with regard to Ukraine’s debt.

This is, first of all, because in contrast to those financial vultures, Russia is a bona fide creditor. Russia did not buy “junk” on the secondary market. The deal was a placement of 100% Ukrainian debt securities, sold on the Irish Stock Exchange, issued at par, and with a coupon rate that had been reduced by more than 50%.

Second, even if we assume that Ukraine’s debt to Russia is private, Russia holds about 17% of all of Ukraine’s private debt, as mentioned above. That is a very significant stake.

Third, it was extremely difficult to force the private creditors, who spent the entire summer of 2015 at the negotiating table, to write off part of Ukraine’s debt (20% of the principal). According to our sources, the negotiations with Kiev were led by some hard-boiled financial vultures (chief among them – Franklin Templeton). They were forced to agree to a meal of cabbage instead of red meat. Therefore, the private creditors can at any time disavow the agreement reached in London to write off part of the debt. And Moscow can provide them with the warrant to do this, with its demand through the English courts for 100% repayment of the Eurobond debt. A game called “Ukraine’s debt to Russia is private” could be a real nail-biter.

It is said that the IMF sees the trap into which Ukraine could fall if its debt is deemed private. Experts who are carefully following the uproar over Ukraine’s debt tend to think that the IMF is still unlikely to change the status of Kiev’s debt to Moscow. Instead, it will probably be decided that just because an IMF member is declared to be in default on an “official” debt to a particular government, this does not affect the fund’s ability to lend to the country that has been declared to be in such “partial” default.



If the IMF does come to this decision, it will be extremely difficult to predict the consequences. The mind boggles. Such a decision would cast aside a rule that has been in force throughout the fund’s history – that sovereign debt is a sacred cow. Any attempt to butcher this “cow” would make that state a pariah in the system of international finance. The slaughter of this sacred cow, scheduled for late November, will lead to a total paralysis of the IMF’s work and the disappearance of what are now known as sovereign loans and credits, just as the mammoths and dinosaurs vanished so long ago.

The radius of the disruption that would occur as a result of Ukraine’s refusal to pay its debt to Russia will spread very far. And Russia will also suffer, but if it plays its hand carefully it will be able to get its money back. But there will be many losers.

First of all, Ukraine. Ukraine’s refusal to pay its debt, even if it gets the next tranche from the IMF in violation of the current rules, will only prolong the throes of Kiev’s financial death. In my estimation, it will only delay the inevitable by a few months.

Second, the International Monetary Fund. During its six months of working with Ukraine, it has broken all the rules that had been formulated and fine-tuned over the course of decades. All the transgressions and chicanery that the IMF has allowed itself when dealing with Ukraine are being piled on top of the fund’s own reform crisis, now in its fifth year. The IMF will celebrate its 70th birthday in late December 2015, but it seems to me that the star of the party will not be around too long after the big day.

Third, the nations of continental Europe. Because Washington is forcing its allies to accept political decisions being made at the IMF in favor of Ukraine and in violation of the current rules, their reputation will be seriously affected. After all, the board of directors will vote on the decision to change the fund’s rules, with the support of America’s European allies. And it seems they have nowhere to turn. Madame Christine Lagarde, the fund’s managing director, claimed at the last IMF-World Bank annual meeting in Lima (Peru) that she is willing to “belly-dance” for Washington, if only the US Congress will vote to ratify the IMF’s decision to review the quotas. Paris deemed that offer inappropriate, reminding Madame Lagarde that she is not only an international official, but also a representative of France.

Fourth, Great Britain. London is already nervous, because it is in the British court system where the showdown over the ill-fated debt will begin. The loan agreement between Russia and Ukraine stipulates that British law be used to resolve any dispute. Many experts anticipate that Washington will insist that London make the “correct” ruling. London’s reputation as a center for international arbitration could be on the line. If London caves in, new issues of Eurobonds will look to other courts for guidance.

Fifth, the entire world. International financial transactions, such as issuing sovereign loans and credits, could be paralyzed. We could witness a parade of states defaulting on their sovereign debt. Innocuous “partial” defaults could mushroom into full-fledged ones. The second wave of the global financial crisis would begin. It seems that the US is pursuing the matter in order to use Ukraine’s debt to Russia as a detonator for global financial chaos.

Ukraine should not pay the debt. All countries that owe Russia cash should not pay. It will help speed up the decay of their Empire.

[londontsi]

Re: Economics

Ukraine should not pay the debt. All countries that owe Russia cash should not pay. It will help speed up the decay of their Empire.

What a bizarre statement.

Nobody in his right mind would refuse to pay a debt if he can pay it back.
People who cannot pay will make any excuse not to pay which is a different thing.

If a debtor does not pay a bank, usually nothing happens to the bank but the debtor credit rating is zeroed.
Tell me who is going to lend that person again, would you?

In this world credit is the lifeblood of commerce and economy in general.
Without credit you are screwed.

I wouldn’t like you to be my financial advisor but then your handle should have been the warning.

Socialism and theft are different things.

.

[Haykakan]

Re: Economics

Ukraine should not pay the debt. All countries that owe Russia cash should not pay. It will help speed up the decay of their Empire.

Ukraine is done regardless. If it pays Russia or not will have little effect on Russia but Ukraine has given up everything it ever owned as the IMF and other western institutions will strip her of everything she has.

[HyeSocialist]

Re: Economics

What a bizarre statement.

Nobody in his right mind would refuse to pay a debt if he can pay it back.
People who cannot pay will make any excuse not to pay which is a different thing.

If a debtor does not pay a bank, usually nothing happens to the bank but the debtor credit rating is zeroed.
Tell me who is going to lend that person again, would you?

In this world credit is the lifeblood of commerce and economy in general.
Without credit you are screwed.

I wouldn’t like you to be my financial advisor but then your handle should have been the warning.

Socialism and theft are different things.

.

And a bad credit from a Russian lending institute means what exactly? My opinion isn't an economical one, it's a political one.

Armenia could have cheap/secure gas from Iran: Russia prevents this.

Armenia could rid itself of corruption like ENA: Russia prevents this.

If I was your financial adviser, I'd suggest you not borrow money from people who are interested in making you indentured.

$200mln "loan" for weapons?