BRICS currency

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin unveils BRICS prototype currency. Putin was seen holding a mock-up of the “BRICS bill,” featuring the flags of the five member nations – Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa – interconnected in a circle.

One of the primary issues with the “BRICS Bill” lies in its inconsistent representation of member nations. For instance, the bill features Pashto text referring to the “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan” (the Taliban regime), yet it bears the flag of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Since the Taliban regime is not internationally recognised and has limited diplomatic acceptance, this inconsistency highlights the challenges of unifying such diverse nations under a single currency framework. Additionally, many BRICS members, including India and South Africa, are reluctant to formally engage with unrecognised governments, further complicating the bill’s acceptance.

Using the “BRICS Bill” for economic exchanges would introduce significant limitations for member states, many of which are not the most economically powerful. Forcing reliance on a shared currency would hinder BRICS countries’ ability to freely trade with non-member states. This limitation is exacerbated by the bloc’s ongoing efforts to reduce dependency on the US dollar while simultaneously maintaining global trade relations. According to the Johannesburg Declaration, BRICS nations are exploring mechanisms to increase trade in local currencies, but the creation of a shared currency remains a distant goal.

A major concern among BRICS nations is the potential destabilisation of national currencies. If a shared “BRICS Bill” were to be introduced, it could lead to inflation and depreciation of national currencies, especially for smaller economies like South Africa or Brazil. A potential decline in the value of national currencies would negatively impact economic stability, making the adoption of a shared currency an unattractive option.

Despite the challenges surrounding the “BRICS Bill,” discussions about creating a digital BRICS currency are gaining momentum. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has been a vocal advocate for a digital currency to facilitate trade among BRICS nations without replacing national currencies. However, even this idea faces significant hurdles, including the logistical complexities of implementing a digital currency across a diverse bloc of nations. It remains to be seen whether a digital BRICS currency will materialise, but discussions on the topic are still in the early stages.

Adopting a shared “BRICS Bill” could lead to negative consequences from Western countries, including the imposition of sanctions and higher tariffs. BRICS’ growing influence is already viewed as a challenge to Western financial dominance, particularly in light of the bloc’s ongoing expansion. Introducing a shared currency could escalate tensions and lead to economic retaliation from key global players like the US and the European Union. Such risks have led BRICS leaders to exercise caution when considering a shared financial instrument.

The BRICS Bill is more symbolic than practical, and adopting it as a currency would likely harm member states’ economies by destabilizing national currencies and reducing economic independence.

Illegal immigration and mechanics of democratic government

This year, the US has an agenda that includes some of the upcoming elections in Croatia too. Immigration experts are raising the alarm about how the increasing flow of migrants illegally crossing into the U.S. may significantly impact states' representation in the House of Representatives and Electoral College.

Overall, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, there are an estimated 16.8 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S. as of June 2023. Therefore, because every House seat represents 761,168 residents on average, the total number of illegal immigrants accounts for roughly 22 seats in the House.

The US presidential election takes place on 5 November. But it's possible the candidate with the most votes won't be the winner. This is because the president is not chosen directly by the voters, but by what's known as the electoral college. When Americans go to the polls in presidential elections they're actually voting for a group of officials who make up the electoral college.

The word "college" here simply refers to a group of people with a shared task. These people are electors and their job is to choose the president and vice-president. The electoral college meets every four years, a few weeks after election day, to carry out that task. The number of electors from each state is roughly in line with the size of its population. Each state gets as many electors as it has lawmakers in the US Congress (the House and Senate).

California has the most electors - 54 - while a handful of sparsely populated states like Wyoming, Alaska, and North Dakota (and Washington DC) have a minimum of three.

There are 538 electors in total. Each elector represents one electoral vote and a candidate needs to gain a majority of the votes - 270 or more - to win the presidency. Generally, states award all their electoral college votes to whoever won the poll of ordinary voters in the state. For example, if a candidate wins 50.1% of the vote in Texas, they are awarded all of the state's 40 electoral votes. Alternatively, a candidate could win by a landslide and still pick up the same number of electoral votes. It's therefore possible for a candidate to become president by winning a number of tight races in certain states, despite having fewer votes across the country.

There are only two states (Maine and Nebraska) that divide up their electoral college votes according to the proportion of votes each candidate receives. Most states consistently vote for the same party each election. This is why presidential candidates target specific "swing states" - states where the vote could go either way - rather than trying to win over as many voters as possible across the country. Every state they win gets them closer to the 270 electoral college votes they need.

It is possible for candidates to be the most popular candidate among voters nationally, but still fail to win enough states to gain 270 electoral votes. In 2016, Donald Trump had almost three million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton but won the presidency because the Electoral College gave him a majority. In 2000, George W Bush won with 271 electoral votes, although Democrat candidate Al Gore won the popular vote by more than half a million. Only three other presidents have been elected without winning the popular vote, all of them in the 19th Century: John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B Hayes, and Benjamin Harrison.

When the US Constitution was being drawn up in 1787, a national popular vote to elect a president was practically impossible (country size and tricky communications). So, the framers of the Constitution created the Electoral College, with each state choosing electors. Smaller states favored the system as it gave them more of a voice than a nationwide popular vote to decide the president.

The electoral college was also favored by southern states, where slaves made up a large portion of the population. Even though slaves didn't vote, they were counted in the US Census (as three-fifths of a person). Since the number of electoral votes was determined by the size of a state's population, southern states had more influence in electing a president than a direct public vote would have given them.

In some states, electors could vote for whichever candidate they prefer, regardless of who voters backed. But in practice, electors almost always vote for the candidate who wins the most votes in their state. If an elector votes against their state's presidential pick, they are termed "faithless". In 2016, seven Electoral College votes were cast this way, but no result has been changed by faithless electors. In some states, "faithless" electors can be liable for fines or prosecuted for their votes or abstaining.

In 2020, US voters became familiar with the concept of "fake electors" after pro-Trump Republicans in seven US states created their electors in a bid to overturn the election's results. In some cases, they created and signed official-looking documents or arrived at state capitals on 14 December - when electors across the country met to officially cast their votes. Some of those involved have faced prosecution and investigations are still ongoing. Federal prosecutors later described the effort as a "corrupt plan to subvert the federal government function by stopping Biden electors' votes from being counted and certified".

Shortly after taking office in January 2021, President Biden signed an executive order requiring the U.S. Census Bureau to factor in all residents, including noncitizens, as part of its decennial calculation of the U.S. population. As a result, the apportionment of House seats and, therefore, electoral votes for presidential elections, could be swayed as migrants continue to pour over the southern border.

Illegal immigration has all kinds of effects and among them is that it distorts the mechanics of democratic government, so their inclusion in the census count for purposes of apportionment is outrageous.

John Titor's scary vision for the US future

"Greetings," Titor wrote in November of 2000 on an obscure site called the Time Travel Institute Forum. "I am a time traveler from the year 2036." Over the next four months, Titor described life in 2036. Gave us a glimpse into our future. The most immediate of Titor's predictions foretold a civil war in the United States having to do with "order and rights". As a result, the United States would split into five regions based on a variety of factors, including differing military objectives. That story is the kind of piece that can take you down an Internet wormhole that you emerge from and say "Did I really just spend two days on that?"

Now multiply that by 10 and back to 2024. Large groups of concerned Americans are traveling toward the southern border to demand action from the Biden administration to fix the "wide open" flood of illegal migrants. A clash between Texas and the Biden administration over who controls the Texas-Mexico border continues to escalate this week as federal officials once again demanded the state give Border Patrol agents access to a park that is a popular corridor for migrants to enter the United States illegally.

 

"We the People are resolute to stand to send a peaceful, lawful, and clear message to all city, state, and federal politicians and immigration enforcement officials who are enabling tens of thousands of illegal entrants, criminals, and known terrorists from over 160 countries worldwide to cross daily into our country along our southern border!" the press release said. 

The current stand-off has sparked fears among right-wing circles that President Joe Biden could try to federalize the National Guard, and the troops could be forced to choose between loyalty to the state and their country. The Texas National Guard is technically part of the US military, which ultimately reports to the president, but they take orders from the state governors except in exceptional circumstances.

The Supreme Court this week sided with the administration when it granted an emergency appeal to allow agents to keep cutting border wire set up by Texas after a lower court had blocked such moves. However, Border Patrol currently has "no plans" to remove the wire unless in an emergency. Gov. Greg Abbott says ten other states have sent the National Guard to the Texas border, and others will follow. Abbott says he is “prepared” for a conflict with federal authorities.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene called for a "national divorce" between red and blue states amid the escalating standoff over migration at the Texas border. Twenty-five Republican governors released a joint statement in support of Abbott on Thursday, praising him for "stepping up to protect American citizens from historic levels of illegal immigrants, deadly drugs like fentanyl, and terrorists entering our country." The dispute has inflamed loose talk of civil war and resistance from conservative media and politicians. 

The clause of the Constitution that Abbott references provides that “no State shall ... engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” One thing that immediately stands out after reading this language is that it does not authorize any state to do anything. Rather, this clause is a prohibition on certain state actions; it forbids states from waging “War” except in limited circumstances. It is very odd to read a provision of the Constitution that limits state power as giving a state the power to violate federal law. Texas’ border stance challenges the federal government’s authority and goes against historical precedent. It is essential to ensure that the Constitution’s principles are upheld and that the rule of law is respected as the situation unfolds. 

John Titor, so far, withstands the test of time.