BRICS presentation for school

I wish I could post the corresponding slideshow for everyone to view. If anyone can assist me, I can post a .pdf somewhere that goes with this writing.

MAKE SURE YOU BRING UP NET NEUTRALITY
FINAL DRAFT

Slide 1, 2,
Good afternoon. My name is Sam Racioppi. I originally got interested in BRICS after the economic and military escalations of war in Ukraine between the US and Russia. While this is a presentation on BRICS, there isn’t very much information on them other than speculation (which is really weird, if you ask me.)

I highly recommend not believing a word that I say, please do your own research and ask your own questions on this matter. If you want to discuss this topic more in depth, I am happy to entertain your questions and discussions any time.

Slide 3
What is the National Debt? The national debt is the amount of money owed by the federal government. If the national debt is the money owed by the US government, who actually owes this debt? That’s right, the citizens of the US.

Slide 4
There are always two sides to every story, of course. I’m about to give you some background that I feel is relevant. It is a blend of facts as well as opinion. Whether you agree or disagree with what I’m discussing, please try to see the picture I’m trying to paint for you.

I am going to present to you a fictional story. Remember what I said about not believing a word I said? I know you came here to learn about BRICS, and I will try to articulate what I know the best I can. This is a graph of our national debt. I can provide the methodology for anyone that wishes to see it. This is also a good representation as to what is happening to other economies that are being talked about a lot. On to my fictional story:

Back in the 1990’s when the different financial bubbles started bursting, the statistical geniuses that our country relies on sat down and performed some simple mathematical equations regarding our country’s financial outlook. They figured out trend lines for things like our debt and GDP, as well as the statistical growth of our GDP compared to our debt. They also took into account the current birth rate of our population and performed some forecasts on everything put together as a whole.

They realized a terrible truth: There is going to be a sharp increase in our debt, which means that, as a country we will be consuming more goods than we produce. Also, they realized there is nothing we can do to fix the problem, we can only put it off for as long as we can.

So, the social scientists went to work. They thought of things like immigration policies, fiscal policies, military policies, foreign policies, as well as public opinion. As a result of their brainstorming sessions, they came up with some more troubling problems. The American public is not going to be happy with changing things in order to fix the financial crisis-to-come, and the world likely won’t be willing to let our deficit spending continue forever.

When the debt started to rise exponentially, instead of our leaders simply telling the public that we need to figure out some very difficult truths, they came up with a better idea: Use the very end of this “free money” period to build the most advanced and capable military the world has ever seen, and use that force to impose our will on the world, whether anyone likes it or not.

That is the end of my fictional story. What does everyone think we did with that advanced military in that fictional story, and how does the world react to this?

Without getting into any 9/11 conspiracy theories, let’s identify a few realities as a result of that terrible attack: Our debt was beginning its exponential climb at the time; our country declared war on terrorism, resulting in a huge build up in our military; other financial markets were showing serious signs of distress; lots of money started being spent on influencing public opinion; it seems our domestic police force is becoming militarized, etc.

Slide 5
Is our deficit spending sustainable, or is it going to cause us issues in the long run?

Slide 6
I don’t want this presentation to be about conspiracy theories, but I’m going somewhere with this information. JFK signed legislation in June of 1963, allowing the US government to issue currency, which is the job of the federal reserve bank. In November of that year he was assassinated. Some people speculate it was due to his actions with this legislation, and lots of “conspiracy theories” stem from his assassination.
I didn’t get into Lincoln for this presentation, but after a cursory search online, there are accusations that he was introducing financial legislation when he was assassinated.

Slide 7
Why is our dollar referred to as the petro dollar? I’m not an expert on this subject, but my rudimentary understanding is that all oil transactions are done in dollars. Why are banks in business? To make money! Every time a major transaction occurs amongst countries involving oil (and actually, a LOT of other goods,) the entities exchange their currencies for dollars and finish the transaction.
According to Wiki, large inflows of petrodollars into a country often has an impact on the value of its currency (especially it’s currency.)

Slide 8—read it
Why would the producer of US dollars want the world to use the dollar for trade if it didn‟t make them money in the process?
(They likely wouldn‟t)


Slide 9
Saddam Hussein. No one is going to say he was a great guy, that’s for sure. I signed up for the Army during the height of the Iraq war because I believed in the reasons we were being told for going there. He was a bad man, he killed thousands of his own people, and if he could, he would come and kill us here in the US, so the story goes.

Slide 10
Well. In the year 2000, he insisted that he would only accept Euro’s for his oil, and started encouraging other oil-producing countries to do the same. 9/11 happened a little over a year later, and Saddam was instantly on our hit list, even though the perpetrators of 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq. In December of 2003, he was found in a dirty hole, stingy and disgusting, surrounded by a pile of cash. He was executed live on TV in December of 2006.

Slide 11
Muammar Gaddafi, former President of Libya. He had been in power for a long time. I don’t know for sure what the truth is regarding him, but I do know some facts. After a bunch of propaganda regarding why Qaddafi had to be taken out of power, his country degraded into a civil war in which he was ousted and killed by his own people, with NATO assistance.

Slide 12
Prior to 2011, there was an Al-Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights award, which was named after Gaddafi. He was recognized by the UN for his human rights policies, and in 2011 Amnesty International awarded him the human rights award. I personally watched a 13 minute video where he rode around Tripoli in April of 2011 in an open car, waving to the people in the streets as they waved back. Do our leaders love and trust the people of this country enough to ride around in open cars, or are they constantly surrounded by armed guards, military, snipers, etc. This was the same year he was killed by his own people.

Slide 13
Coincidentally, that very same year he was calling for the return of a gold-based currency in the Middle East, and Africa. He was trying to convince other oil producing countries to abandon the dollar, and switch to the gold dinar.

“Some believe it is about protecting civilians, others say it is about oil, but some are convinced intervention in Libya is all about Gaddafi‟s plan to introduce the gold dinar, a single African currency made from gold, a true sharing of the wealth.”

The preceding quote was made in May of 2011. He was dragged through the streets and killed in December of that year.
Slide 14

Some people put forward quite a convincing argument as to why they believe we should be able to just create our currency out of thin air, whether it is paper or digital dollars. I’m not going to present their arguments. I just want to put forth a quick scenario for everyone to ponder over: Let’s say you have two countries in opposite hemispheres, for example, the United States and China. For the purposes of this example, let’s pretend that China is a major producer of goods that the United States purchases. For this example, let’s also pretend that the US is importing more goods than it exports, which results in a financial loss at the end of the year in their budget. China, as a whole, produces more than it consumes, financially speaking of course.

Well, China is producing perfectly good products that the US market relies on for our weak markets to function. How does the US pay for these goods? Well, since we are consuming more than we are producing as a country, we have to create currency from nothing to “pay” for it. On a temporary basis, this would be acceptable, but think about this over a long term. What would the incentive be for the producer (China) to continue this relationship with the consumer (the US) when the consumer isn’t providing anything of real value? Was my scenario pretend, or is it reality?

China is destroying their land, their air, their water, and their environment to be the producers of our junk. They have mouths to feed, what good does our US dollar do for the population of China that just doesn’t have quality food or water for them to use? What good does our dollar do for them if the environment is so bad they have to pollinate their crops by hand because there are no bees anymore?
I think they woke up to the realities of the global economy “we” trying to create, and they aren’t happy with it.

BRICS stands for Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. They represent 40% of the world’s population, and their economies consist of 20% of the Gross World Product.

Check out the bottom of this slide as I continue. As I put forth in my scenario, short term deficit spending is probably okay. However, long term deficit spending, resulting in exponential debt levels amongst the consuming and developed countries, does not encourage other countries to continue trade in those unfair terms. It is my opinion that in order for deficit spending to be sustainable, all the players at the global table of trade need to be able to do this. Once all players are afforded the right to create currency from nothing, what is their incentive to continue to produce? Regarding the bottom of this image, notice anything?

The BRICS countries make up the world’s largest market, their GDP grew more than 300 percent over the last 10 years, while the worlds GDP grew only 60 percent. That type of influence cannot be disregarded. Look at the map of countries—there is a representative of BRICS in nearly every corner of the world. Imagine if they convinced the world that the US are the aggressors in the world, and the world sanctioned US? People don’t think it’s possible, but…

Slide 15
In 2009, the leaders of BRICS started having yearly summits together. As a result of each yearly meeting, they create a joint announcement and release it to the world. In 2013, BRICS announced the need for a new global reserve currency, which is a role currently held by the US dollar. As part of this need for a new method of performing international transactions, they also decided to open a “new development bank” backed by $100 billion in assets, contributed in equal parts by the BRICS countries. They are also working to replace the SWIFT system, which currently facilitates trade amongst countries.

Slide 16
One more weird thing about BRICS before we jump into Ukraine: If you go on major news sites and type in the acronym “BRICS,” you typically won’t find one mention of BRICS, or their intentions of unseating the dollar as the reserve currency. You would think this is major news that Americans find relevant, wouldn’t you? Moody’s credit agency on February 20th, just 5 days ago, degraded Russia’s credit rating to “junk” status. They released this statement, and there wasn’t one mention of Russia’s actions with BRICS, which should affect their credit in a positive way, (one would think.)

Slide 17
Any questions so far on BRICS before we move on to Ukraine?

Slide 18
Ukraine. In November of 2013, the current Ukrainian president Viktor Yanu-kovick was going to sign an agreement with the European Union, but changed his mind at the last minute. After the EU agreement was rejected, protests started in Kiev. The citizens of Kiev and western Ukraine want to be more closely aligned with European ideology and interests, while Eastern Ukraine and Crimea tend to identify as ethnically Russian, resulting in their ideals being more closely aligned with Russian interests. They are neighbors after all.

Slide 19
In December, Yanukovych made an agreement with Russia in which Russia would purchase Ukrainian bonds as well as reduce the price of natural gas to Ukraine. Some people refer to this act as a bail out from Russia. After this agreement was signed, the protests got worse. In January of 2014, two protesters died from gunfire, and a third dies during general confrontations between police and protesters. In February, continued fighting and clashes leaves 16 protesters and 10 police officers dead, with hundreds more injured. Protesters at this point are demanding the resignation of Yanukovych, forget repealing agreements and things like that. February 22nd, the Ukrainian parliament votes to dismiss Yanukovych and to free rival leader Yulia Tymoshenko from jail.
Now, the rest of the population is upset because of the outing of Yanukovych, which results in protesters rallying in Crimea.

February 27th, gunmen seize parliament and government buildings in Crimea. Report start coming in a day later stating Russian troops are taking up positions around Crimea. March 1st, Russian troops enter and secure Crimea without firing a shot, seemingly welcomed by the population. Russia claims this decision was presented to the Russian Parliament, and they voted for force to be authorized. The US calls for Putin to remove the troops from Crimea. Russia claims they deployed troops after the request of Yanukovych, and with Parliaments authorization.

Slide 20
So, let us get this straight: Protests in a foreign country, leading to violence, resulting in a legitimate vote by a neighboring country to use force to maintain order, is a bad thing? Apparently, to the US and Europe it is, because at this point the US started threatening sanctions against Russia for their actions. By the way, right now, we are discussing arming Ukraine to fight against Russia.

March 6th, Crimea’s parliament announces it wants to join Russia, and will have elections for the citizens to vote March 16th on this issue. Talks fail between the US and Russia, and on March 16th the vote goes forward, and 97% of the voters in Crimea backed the proposal to join Russia.
There are allegations that Russia is providing fighters, training and equipment to the rebels in the East, Russia maintains they are not. Malaysian airlines flight MH17 was said to have been shot down by separatists using weapons supplied by Russia, Russia maintains otherwise.
Since then, there has been a series of referendums, cease fires, violations of cease fires, accusations, escalations, economic sanctions, etc. Nothing seems to deter either side from this matter. Russia maintains they are keeping order, the west maintains Russia needs to be stopped from building a modern empire.

Is everyone familiar with the term, proxy war? There are accusations that the United States CIA intentionally destabilized Ukraine to get rid of the anti-American President, and to install a pro-Europe friendly government.
The way our media treats BRICS like it doesn’t even exist, while degrading the credit rating of a major global economy to junk, kind of seems suspicious to me, and so does our interests in ensuring Ukraine remains pro-American. Russia secured Crimea and not one protester or policeman died as a result of violence. Shouldn’t this be praised instead of condemned?

February 24th, 2015. More than 5,600 people have died in the unrest so far. Reuters has an article that states the rebels in Eastern Ukraine brought reporters to witness the withdrawal of heavy weapons from the front lines under the latest cease-fire, yet Kiev says it is empty words and claims the Russian backed separatists are just re-grouping. Someone is lying, they have to be in order for both those statements to exist. As a result of this latest fighting, Russia is demanding more money from Kiev or else they may shut off the natural gas pipeline from Russia to Ukraine, and it is cold there now. The US is threatening more sanctions against Russia, and Russia seems to be undeterred.

Slide 21
Once again, the media won’t tell you that BRICS exists, and that’s why Russia doesn’t care about economic sanctions. They are creating an alternate financial system for the world to use, and we are threatening empty sanctions against Russia. One of these days this war will go beyond economics, and it could very well be the day we announce we will arm Ukraine to fight the separatists, which Russia already announced would be an act of war against them.
No one would fault BRICS for wanting to introduce a new financial paradigm to the world, but I think history is filled with examples of what happens to those who threaten the current financial system. Until the American public is aware of why we are fighting these wars, we will fall prey to whatever propaganda the media tells us. If a politician got on TV and announced “we need to go to war over our dollar,” we wouldn’t support it as people. In order to support war, there needs to be a good reason for it. It truly concerns me that BRICS isn’t being discussed in the US, while we simultaneously prepare for conflict with a nuclear armed country which happens to be making friends with other nuclear armed countries.

Thank you for listening today. As I said in the beginning, don’t believe a word I said, please do your own research, and ask your own questions on this matter.

Any questions?

[link to www.youtube.com (secure)] gaddafi drives through Tripoli
[link to www.ipsnews.net] <Argentina BRICS
[link to www.forbes.com] <Opinion article, well written
[link to en.wikipedia.org] <Russians make up largest percentage of population of Ukraine
[link to www.bbc.com] Russian parliament approves troop deployment in Ukraine
[link to www.rense.com]