Talk:BRIC
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Correction in the GDP forecast?
The statement:
These countries are forecast to encompass over forty percent of the world's population and hold a combined GDP [PPP] of 14.951 trillion dollars
contradicts the "Dreaming with BRICs: The Path to 2050" thesis, where we can see by the graphs (page 4) that their combined GDP reach over 85 trillion dollars. Or am I wrong?
[edit] Real Sources
Does anybody have more information about BRIC? i.e. links or primary sources? How do we know that it was proposed by Putin? Are the other countries going along with his plans? Episcopo
Recently? What year? --sparkit 17:03, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
--- According to the Japanese edition: its use has started with "Dreaming with BRICs: The Path to 2050" by Goldman Sachs in an investors' report October 2003. Soredewa 08:11, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
---
BRIC is not a formal coalition like the United States or the EU, so Putin couldn't have proposed it. The whole article seems to talk as if there is some formal link between these countries, there isn't, they trade with each other but they also trade with other nations so the notion of "proposing" BRIC is meaningless. The BRIC thesis merely states that these four countries will be dominant economies in the future (by 2050). The BRIC thesis was proposed by Jim O'Neil, the chief global economist at Goldman Sachs. The first sentence in the article is ungrammatical. The final sentence states that the BRIC's "do not want territory". Both China and India are involved in territorial disputes. India is in disupte with Pakistan over parts of Kashmir. China "wants" Taiwan and has other disuptes with Vietnam and Japan so this last sentence, aside from being totally subjective and sentimental, is also simply wrong.
---
When people say BRIC do not want territory, it really means they do not want to fight around and conquer colonies like the UK and other european countries did in the last few centuries. Dispute over land is not the same as conquering a colony. Almost every single country has some sort of dispute over land with some other country. That does not make them "want territory".
[edit] South Africa
is includeded at the Japanese wiki page.--Jondel 08:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, I cannot read Japanese, but I can imagine why. In the BRICs (or BRICS) report (which is fully and freely available on the internet) the author of the report includes a section on South Africa, not as a part of the BRIC group itself, but for comparison in terms of standard of living over the same extrapolated time-period and because the author noted that Africa was notably absent from the current or foreseen (i.e. BRIC) major economic powers. I believe that South Africa's overall contribution/proportion to the global according to the BRIC report prediction didn't exceed 10% or so...Would be nice to model the page after the BRIC report though
- One can argue that South Africa is also a big expanding economy. Nevertheless it shouldn't be mentione here because this article is about the BRIC thesis.
PeriodSimple. --Pinnecco 23:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] China -> PRC
Would it be better to link China to the entry for the PRC? Hong Qi Gong 15:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- The subject matter is clearly mainland China. We may perhaps, otherwise, link it to China (disambiguation) if deliberate ambiguity does exist. The subject is definitely not China. — Instantnood 17:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] BRIC GDP
The article claims that by 2050, BRIC will have a combined GDP of $14.951 trillion. It also suggests that, if they are treated as one unit, their combined GDP will eclipse that of all other entities. Both statements cannot be true. The US GDP is about $11 trillion. If it takes 20 years for the US to get to $14.95 trillion, that would imply a growth rate of only 1.5%, a rather large drop. If the 2050 US GDP was $14.95 trillion, that would imply a growth rate below 0.7% -- which would imply either that the US would have some catastrophic GDP drop in the next few decades, or be more or less consistently in recession for several decades. Either is possible, of course, but if we include such events into our model, predicting 40 years into the future becomes absurd.
I think there might be a distinction between GDP dollar equivalent and "actual" GDP, as measured by purchasing power parity (PPP). The latter tends be much higher, usually, so BRIC's GDP might well exceed others. Not to mention the fact that the $14.951 trillion figure is subject to the dollar exchange rate, which is highly uncertain even now, and inflation.
[edit] Russian demography
I think it's a forgotten factor. Russian population et growing old, and natality is so low that population is shrinking by 700 000 people a year (almost half a percent!). Russia can't reemerge as a major power with a falling population. The overall population may fall by 50% between now and 2050! [1].
- You can't confuse the BRIC economic theory with criticisms of it. Many people have reservations about the hypothesis that those emerging markets will either collectively or predominantly become the major players in the world within a generation; but the fact that some very clever people at Goldman Sachs have said that they think it will happen has unquestionably had an effect on commercial strategic thinking in developed nations. Legis 16:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Asian CHIKS
Quote: "the term Asian CHIKS ( China, Hong Kong, India, Korea and Singapore) is gradually gaining recognition, particularly in Asia"???? Is someone taking the mickey here? Since I see no reference to support this term anywhere I have deleted it. (unsigned comment)
- It is mentioned in the
reference articleexternal link " A pile of BRICs or Asian CHIKS?" S Sepp 16:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
It is also refrenced here Value Stock Blog
[edit] BRIC article : factual errors?
This article has some pretty serious errors and needs to be checked against the original Goldman Sachs paper. The author states "Goldman Sachs predicts China and India, respectively, to be the dominant global suppliers of manufactured goods and services while Brazil and Russia would become similarly dominant as suppliers of raw materials."
This thesis appears nowhere in the Goldman Sachs paper; neither the words "raw", "materials", or "resources" appear in the paper at all. The thesis is a pure invention of the author of the Wikipedia article. In fact Brazil, and even much more so Russia, are significant manufacturing nations, and the importance of manufacturing and services in these countries will continue to increase faster than than their significance as raw materials suppliers. So the Wikipedia thesis is both (a) false; and (b) does not apear in the Goldman Sachs paper. The article should be corrected, and checked more generally against the Goldman Sachs paper.
The Wikipedia article perpetuates a false stereotype, in particular, about the Russian economy. Of all the BRIC economies, the Russian economy is the most advanced, with 60% of GDP produced as services, largest of all the BRIC economies, and with significant high technology manufacturing, particularly in the area of military goods, where after a great revival after 1998 Russia vies with the U.S. as the largest producer in the world. Correspondingly, the Russian population is the most urbanized of the BRIC countries', and has the smallest agricultural sector (4.9% of GDP, compared to 12.5% in China, 18.6% in India, and 20% in Brazil -- all from Wikipedia sources). So to describe Russia as primarily a "supplier of raw materials" is really severely misleading.
212.44.151.30 14:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)CSawyer
- Truthfully I am not sure that this is all correct (Russia's economy is almost entirely based upon exporting raw materials, rather than on services; nor would I imagine that Russia's manufacturing is considered high tech compared to, say, China), but it is really not relevant. This article is about the highly influential BRIC thesis, not a critique or otherwise of the Russian (or other emerging) economy. Legis (talk - contributions) 09:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Brazil has 81% of its population living in urban areas (2000). Whats the date for Russia and the other BRIC countries? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.40.145.2 (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC).
Not only that, but it amuses me that the brazilian population growth rate is considered as "HIGH" in the article, since its only 1.04%, slightly higher than that of the United States (0.91%). Brazil and US occupies respectively positions 126 and 132 in the list of countries by their growth rate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:201.40.145.2 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 24 February 2007.
[edit] BRIMC as popular as BRIC?
The article says "... due to the popularity of the Goldman Sachs thesis "BRIC" and "BRIMC" (M for Mexico) ..." I googled "BRIMC Mexico" and only got 269 results, which are actually only 34 since the rest are only repetitions, while googling "BRIC Brazil" you get 481,000 results.
Unless you know of other results, it seems to me that BRIMC is not exactly a popular term as the article purports.--Diegou 13:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree, BRICM (Mexico), BRICET (Eastern Europe and Turkey) and BRICS (South Africa) neither seem to be in common usage, nor do they seem to be supported by any of the GS papers on Brics. BRIC + Mexico + Korea could be argued but frankly the ountires of EE, Turkey and South Africa are simply too small to be given serious consideration. I would remove these references.
- Agreed. In reality, BRIC is rarely used to refer to those four countries and is more used as a euphamism for emerging markets generally - I don't think it will be too long before we simply hear of people referring to Mexico, Chile and Malaysia as "BRIC" economies. Legis (talk - contributions) 09:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Democracies? "Quasi-democracy?"
Calling Russia a "quasi-democracy" (while Brazil and India are "real" democracies), and China a "communist state" is strongly POV. What is the established standard by which one measures the quantity of democracy? If Russia is a "quasi-democracy", why is Brazil, with millions of people living in the slums in deplorable conditions, completely shut out of the country's political system, considered a democracy? Why is India considered a democracy despite still having a caste system, no independent judiciary, corruption, bureaucracy, and a 60% literacy rate (with which "free" elections are a joke)? China is no more "communist" than the U.S., since Communism implies an economic system with an equal distribution of wealth. China is not exactly that. You could say perhaps it's a one-party state, which is only marginally better than the U.S. two-party state. By the way, I haven't seen references to the U.S. as a "quasi-democracy" anywhere in Wikipedia, despite having no direct voting system, running whole countries as colonies (its citizens have no rights in U.S. decision-making), and maintaining the world's most famous illegal prison.
Please delete this elementary school-level passage. Starz
- The terms were actually lifted by me directly from an article in the Financial Times that made the same point; I think that all they are trying to illustrate is the lack of similarity between tbe BRICs in various regards, including the political structure by which their leadership is chosen. If you would prefer to rephrase it, please do so. That is the beauty of an anyone-can-edit encyclopedia. --Legis (talk - contributions) 08:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
