Bharat Rakshak

Austin wrote:Nice Interview , The Next Crash & Fears Of A New Collapse 2016 with Mohamed El Erian

Neshant wrote: Its exactly what the Japanese PM is running around the world asking for. i.e. more global "fiscal stimulus" aka running up national debt & govt spending it wastefully. Half of it landing up in the pockets of private banks & other cronies.

All this is a proven failure. But they will do it anyway.

ramana wrote:Pros and Cons of BREXIT for India?
Any pointers?

1. What is Brexit?


A portmanteau of the words “Britain” and “exit,” it is the nickname for a British exit of the European Union after the June 23 referendum asking voters: “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”
The debate leading up to this week’s vote is playing out, however, as a broader choice over what national values to prioritize.

Pro-Brexit advocates have framed leaving the European Union as necessary to protect, or perhaps restore, the country’s identity: its culture, independence and place in the world. This argument is often expressed by opposition to immigration.

“Remain” supporters typically argue that staying in the union is better for the British economy and that concerns about migration and other issues are not important enough to outweigh the economic consequences of leaving.

The debate has also cut along the country’s famously deep class divides: Voters with less money and education are more likely to support leaving the union. Robert Tombs, a historian at the University of Cambridge, said this stems from a sense of abandonment among poor and working-class Britons. The Brexit debate has become a vessel for anti-establishment and anti-elite feelings directed at the leaders of mainstream British political parties as much as at Europe.

Neither side is defending the European Union as a meaningful or admirable institution. In part, this speaks to particularly British views that the rest of Europe is somehow alien.

This also reflects a Euroskepticism, or opposition to the European Union, rising across the bloc as the union veers from crisis to crisis. In this way, the Brexit vote is a particularly noticeable manifestation of a sense that European institutions have fallen short of their lofty promises and have created burdens, such as absorbing migrants or bailing out troubled economies, that many Europeans are tired of bearing.

2. What is the case for leaving?

A lot is implied in one of the campaign’s slogans, “Take control.” Britain’s loss of full authority over its economic policies and regulations has so rankled many of the country’s citizens that it has spawned an entire genre of urban legends over the years, called “Euromyths.”

These stories usually feature some aspect of classically British culture that is supposedly under threat. One claimed that double-decker buses were to be banned, while another suggested that fish and chips would have to be written in Latin on menus. The subtext is barely subliminal at all: Gray-suited Brussels bureaucrats are the enemy of Britishness, a threat to Britain’s identity in all its deep-fried, double-decker glory.

“There are two things at play here,” said Brian Klaas, a fellow in comparative politics at the London School of Economics. “One is the cultural nostalgia for Britain’s lost place in the world. This idea that Britain used to matter, Britain used to be able to do things without having to consult Brussels.”

Then there is immigration. “There’s this feeling that we’re losing our cultural identity and our national identity,” Mr. Klaas said, “at the same time that there’s this influx of people who are willing to work for low wages.”

A 2013 British Social Attitudes Survey found that more than three-quarters of Britons want the country’s immigration policies reduced, and about 56 percent said they should be reduced “a lot.”

Though Britain has accepted a small number of refugees relative to other European countries, British tabloids have implied the country is being overrun by an uncontrollable “swarm” or “tide” of foreigners. Labor migration, particularly from Eastern Europe, has often been painted as economically threatening.

Terrence G. Peterson, a fellow at Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation, said there is “a sense that Britain has lost something, that it has lost its sovereignty.”

“It can’t close its borders in the way that it wants,” he said. “It can’t have the economic policies it chooses.”

3. What is the case for staying?

What is most striking about the “Remain” campaign is what it has not done: countered the arguments for leaving. Rather than defending the European Union or immigration as good for Britain, the campaign warns that leaving would be disastrous for the British economy.

Most economists agree with that claim. Europe is Britain’s most important export market and its greatest source of foreign direct investment, and union membership has been crucial to establishing London as a global financial center. A British exit would jeopardize that status — and the high-paying jobs that come with it.

The mere fact of the referendum has already affected the economy; the pound is at its lowest valuation in seven years.

But it is telling that those who want to stay, including Prime Minister David Cameron and the leadership of Britain’s two main political parties, have not expressed much enthusiasm for the European Union itself. Instead, their arguments are focused narrowly on British self-interest. Their message is not that membership in the bloc is an exciting opportunity so much as a basic economic necessity.

That is a sign of how unpopular the union has become throughout Britain, according Mr. Klaas, partly because of bad public relations. “If you get funding from Europe for a road, you take credit,” he said. “But if you can’t get funding, it’s Europe’s fault.”

4. Why are Britons so wary of Europe?

Spend enough time in the United Kingdom, and you will hear people refer to “the Continent.” Travel agency windows advertise flights and package tours “to Europe,” as if it were someplace else.

As Mr. Peterson of Stanford put it, “Britain has always kept Europe at a distance, even when they were favorable to the E.U.”

Britain initially refused to join the European Economic Community when it was founded in 1957. It became a member in 1973, only to have a crisis of confidence that led to a similar exit referendum two years later. (The pro-Europe campaign won that round with 67 percent of the vote.)

A strain of populist opposition to Europe remained in the decades that followed. Britain has never joined other countries in using the euro as currency, for example, or participated in the union’s Schengen Area open-borders agreement.

5. O.K., so why now?

Recent challenges within the European Union have given Euroskepticism new urgency.

“There wouldn’t be a referendum without the eurozone crisis{of course what is british identity if not for exploiting the weakness of others} , which made the E.U. look badly organized and dysfunctional,” said Charles Grant, the director of the Centre for European Reform, a London-based research group. “The refugee crisis hasn’t helped either. It made the E.U. seem out of control.”

Mr. Peterson said the deeper issue is that the union remains an unfinished project, which allowed these economic and migration crises to become so severe.

The European Union never developed centralized political institutions strong enough to manage its diverse constituent countries. Individual nations have little incentive to make sacrifices for the common good, and European unity is weakest when it is needed most.

6. What will happen to Britain if it leaves?

Projections differ significantly over the precise economic effect, but there is a consensus that leaving would hurt Britain financially, at least in the short term.

Without access to the union’s open markets, Britain would probably lose trade and investment. And while the influx of migrant workers has created anxiety over British culture and identity, losing that labor force could lead to lower productivity, slower economic growth and decreased job opportunities, a study by Britain’s National Institute of Economic and Social Research found.

A Brexit could also quickly spawn, err, a “Scexit.” Nicola Sturgeon, the first minister of Scotland, has said that if Britain votes to leave the European Union, she will hold a new referendum in which Scots could vote to exit Britain — and then rejoin the union as an independent nation.

Scotland’s voters rejected such a measure by nearly 10 points in 2014, but analysts say a Brexit could change that because the Scots overwhelmingly support European Union membership.

If Scotland were to leave, that could dramatically alter Britain’s political character, as Scotland’s members of Parliament lean to the left.

7. What are the wider ramifications?

Britain makes up about a sixth of the European Union’s economy. A Brexit, Mr. Klaas said, “would be akin to California and Florida being lopped off the U.S. economy.”

That destabilization could affect the United States’ economy: Last week, the Federal Reserve in Washington cited the possibility of a Brexit as a reason to not raise interest rates.

There could be political consequences, as well. If Britain leaves the union, that could give momentum to the nationalistic, anti-migrant message and policies of populist, far-right parties that are already rising across Europe.

The implications for the European project itself are unclear, but that uncertainty may be the greatest threat to the union, which has helped bring Europe 70 years of peace and is already under growing strain.

It also undermines trust between member states, whose commitments seem less reliable every time one of them toys with leaving.

“Members of the eurozone will realize that things can come unstuck,” Mr. Grant said. “Entropy can happen.”

In his view, Germany already has too much power in the bloc, and a British exit would make that imbalance more pronounced. It would undermine the European Union’s legitimacy and make it more difficult to respond to internal crises, like the Greek economy or the migrant influx, and to outside security threats, he said.

Mr. Klaas said, “A more unified Europe is a powerful counterbalance to people like Vladimir Putin.”

“Putin has stayed silent on this,” he said of the Russian leader. “But he’s probably silently cheering the pro-Brexit side.” {any person who knows the current world order and its flaws would}

US banks have been expanding their accumulations of capital and credit-worthiness, putting them in better shape to withstand the financial pressures of any major economic downturn, the US Federal Reserve Board said in a press release.

WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — Since 2009, the 33 banks have added more than $700 billion in common equity capital, the Federal Reserve noted.

"The nation's largest bank holding companies continue to build their capital levels and improve their credit quality, strengthening their ability to lend to households and businesses during a severe recession."

The latest series of stress tests supervised by the Federal Reserve indicated that loan losses at the 33 participating bank holding companies would total $385 billion during the nine financial quarters tested, the release continued.

"The ‘severely adverse’ scenario features a severe global recession with the domestic unemployment rate rising five percentage points, accompanied by a heightened period of financial stress, and negative yields for short-term US Treasury securities."

Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan told CNBC on Friday the U.K. vote to leave the European Union ushers in a period that's even worse than the darkest days of October 1987.

Britons voted by 51.9 percent to quit the 28-country union, shocking markets that had priced in a win for the remain camp.

"This is the worst period, I recall since I've been in public service," Greenspan said on "Squawk on the Street."

"There's nothing like it, including the crisis — remember October 19th, 1987, when the Dow went down by a record amount 23 percent? That I thought was the bottom of all potential problems. This has a corrosive effect that will not go away."

The former Fed chairman said that the root of the "British problem is far more widespread." He said the result of the referendum will "almost surely" lead to the Scottish National Party trying to "resurrect Scottish Independence."

Greenspan said the "euro currency is the immediate problem." While the euro and the euro zone were major steps in a movement toward European political integration, "it's failing," he said.

"Brexit is not the end of the set of problems, which I always thought were going to start with the euro because the euro is a very serious problem in that the southern part of the euro zone is being funded by the northern part and the European Central Bank," Greenspan said.

"This is the worst period, I recall since I've been in public service. There's nothing like it, including the crisis — remember October 19th, 1987, when the Dow went down by a record amount 23 percent? That I thought was the bottom of all potential problems. This has a corrosive effect that will not go away." -Alan Greenspan, speaking on CNBC about the Brexit vote

Even with that in mind, the European Central Bank is limited in what it can do because these fundamental problems like the stagnation of real incomes don't have easy solutions, Greenspan told CNBC.

"There's a certain amount that monetary policy can do, but our problem is fundamentally fiscal," he said, adding that this is true in the United States as well as "every major country in Europe."

Part of the problem is that the "developed countries are all aging very rapidly," which is leading to a higher ratio of government spending in the form of entitlements, Greenspan said.

The 90-year-old Greenspan presided over the Federal Reserve for 19 years, starting with the administration of President Ronald Reagan through that of George W. Bush.

Austin wrote:Looks like entire Western World MSM media are shocked with Breexit Vote.

Ammanpour blames it on refugee crisis and why Assad needs to be bombed to solve the Syria crisis which interviewing foreign secretary on Bri-exit only to be counted by him saying the refuges coming from Syria is small part compared to refueege coming from Asia and other places

Christopher Sidor wrote:. I think West should do it. Create another Iraq by overthrowing Assad and watch IS/Desh get reborn. This would give a flip to the sectarian conflict from levanant to the Persian gulf. Go for it. After all Iraq was just a mishap. They would have definitely learned from their mistake. Go Ammanpour, kick Assad out. Go France kick Allawites out of power in Syria.

Neshant wrote:Banksters are already plotting how to reverse the Brexit vote

Neshant wrote:Liquidity and swap agreements by central banks is nothing more than a fancy name for banker bailouts & bonuses. These fools were caught on the wrong side of the Brexit trade with leveraged bets and now want to make good on their gambling bets by offloading the loss onto the public in the name of financial stability.

However had the vote gone their way, they would have pocketed the profits.

ramana wrote:ToothAu, Read this
https://t.co/8hZCwfgsnB
World Affairs Council of San Francisco had podcast of interview on 15 August 2016. Try to look it up. Also someone post this on Forum.

http://www.simonandschuster.com/books/T ... 1501121975
This Brave New World
India, China and the United States
By Anja Manuel
based on 29 ratings | 5 reviews on Goodreads.com
“Incisive...lively and accessible...Manuel shows us that an optimistic path is possible: we can bring China and India along as partners.” —San Francisco Chronicle

In the next decade and a half, China and India will become two of the world’s indispensable powers—whether they rise peacefully or not. During that time, Asia will surpass the combined strength of North America and Europe in economic might, population size, and military spending.

Both India and China will have vetoes over many international decisions, from climate change to global trade, human rights, and business standards.

From her front row view of this colossal shift, first at the State Department and now as an advisor to American business leaders, Anja Manuel escorts the reader on an intimate tour of the corridors of power in Delhi and Beijing. Her encounters with political and business leaders reveal how each country’s history and politics influences their conduct today. Through vibrant stories, she reveals how each country is working to surmount enormous challenges—from the crushing poverty of Indian slum dwellers and Chinese factory workers, to outrageous corruption scandals, rotting rivers, unbreathable air, and managing their citizens’ discontent.

We wring our hands about China, Manuel writes, while we underestimate India, which will be the most important country outside the West to shape China’s rise. Manuel shows us that a different path is possible—we can bring China and India along as partners rather than alienating one or both, and thus extend our own leadership in the world.

The coming quarters are going to be very interesting. Will it be a repeat of 2008 or will it be a repeat of 2000 dot-com bubble or will it be a repeat of 1997 Asian Financial crisis? And will we learn the correct lessons or will the lessons be half learned?

chanakyaa wrote:

The coming quarters are going to be very interesting. Will it be a repeat of 2008 or will it be a repeat of 2000 dot-com bubble or will it be a repeat of 1997 Asian Financial crisis? And will we learn the correct lessons or will the lessons be half learned?

What would cause such event/what is the driver?? 2000-dot-com, 2008 and Asian crisis, or 1998 for that matter were caused by different reasons?