which better,G8 or G4?

[badguy2000]

G7 was founded purely to manage the global economy in 1970s.
now,it has become G8.
But I don't think G8 has more capacity to manage global economy than G7 in 1970s-1980s,because G8 is too inefficient and global economy has changed a lot.


maybe a new G4( USA,EU,Japan and China) should be a better alternative!
if the big 4 can cooperate,they surely can easily manage global economy better and more efficient than G8.

[clean]

You can't take Russia out of the equation. They are an economic powerhouse. Granted, dealing with them can be like trying to convince your drunk college roomate to step away from the keg and go get some sleep, but you have to deal with them.
As far as the four, you mentioned, they all have their moments of self interest and boneheaded financial moves. The "big four" will never fully cooperate. They can't.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

You can't take Russia out of the equation. They are an economic powerhouse.

Not yet they aren't.

Their economy is not yet large enough for them to actually be in the G8 but they have been included anyway - presumably in an attempt to make them feel less victimized (though I doubt if it has worked if Putin's continual petulant outbursts and ridiculous posturing are anything to go by).

The Soviet Union had all those oil and gas reserves too - but it didn't stop it being an economic basket case.

This will probably irritate the hell out of the expat Russia STRONG fanboys but it's an interesting alternative view of Russia IMO.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=OHIPYAHVJGBMTQFIQMGSFFOAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2007/08/23/wrussia223.xml

[Trogdor]

You can't exclude Canada. They are the closest medium to the US and Europe in terms of economic and social bridging.

[Solomin]

G7 was founded purely to manage the global economy in 1970s.
now,it has become G8.
But I don't think G8 has more capacity to manage global economy than G7 in 1970s-1980s,because G8 is too inefficient and global economy has changed a lot.


maybe a new G4( USA,EU,Japan and China) should be a better alternative!
if the big 4 can cooperate,they surely can easily manage global economy better and more efficient than G8.

International Political Economy is something I spent a great deal of time studying during my undergraduate and I'm not sure I have any idea of what you mean by 'inefficient'. The G7/G8 is simply a diplomatic forum for the countries involved to discuss, cooperate, and plan their economic agendas (Although 'agenda' is often thought of as a negative term, I do not use it as such). I do not see how this is less efficient than other multilateral forums.

If the G8 were to disband and form a G4 as you prescribe there would be definite insult and backlash from the countries excluded. The 'G' stands for group, but think of it as standing for global, and is designed to help manage and foster the global economy. By reducing the G8 to the G4 you now have a forum with only 4 members whose purpose implies they are the majority of the world economy. This is false and seems redundant when you consider the amount of other multilateral trade organizations and forums in the world (ASEAN, NAFTA, EEA, etc, etc, etc,)

The G8 represents roughly 65% of the world economy. If anything the G8 will be forced to expand in the near future to include China and India. It will need to adapt to the ever changing global economy. If anything the initial inclusion of the Russian Federation was appeasement. Russia has this childhood ego that it must satisfy. "I MATTER MOMMY AND DADDY" it's inner child cries as it wishes it had the had political and military influence it did 2 decades ago. I said 'initial' because the inclusion, as it will be with China and India, was inevitable as they do now in fact matter economically. This discussion was a very boring, yet heated topic at the time of Russia's inclusion. I don't want to go into further detail because it's history and is considered a black and white issue.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

maybe a new G4( USA,EU,Japan and China) should be a better alternative!


Isn't your G4 just G8 plus China and minus Russia and Canada?

[clean]

Russia has the gas/oil to make it a powerhouse. But yeah, they're not yet a powerhouse. But they can also, and are willing to, shut off the gas line to Europe. So you have to have them in there. You win them by introducing private western companies. I know this is a simplified view, but I still think the US ended up winning the Vietnam War by pulling out troops and sending in Pepsi. (or at least got the upper hand).

And yes, I think his G4 solely gets rid of Russia and Canada.

[Flamming_Python]

Not yet they aren't.

Their economy is not yet large enough for them to actually be in the G8 but they have been included anyway - presumably in an attempt to make them feel less victimized (though I doubt if it has worked if Putin's continual petulant outbursts and ridiculous posturing are anything to go by).

The Soviet Union had all those oil and gas reserves too - but it didn't stop it being an economic basket case.

This will probably irritate the hell out of the expat Russia STRONG fanboys but it's an interesting alternative view of Russia IMO.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=OHIPYAHVJGBMTQFIQMGSFFOAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2007/08/23/wrussia223.xml

The country isn't a superpower. If I had a precise definition of a powerhouse, then perhaps I could tell you if Russia is one, but as it stands I have no idea. It has a huge amount of challenges and problems to face, social & economical. But unlike let's say the 90's, the majority of these problems are becoming less and less significant, and the economy is roaring along in all directions.

In terms of economy, it is pretty large and is growing faster than all the other industrialised countries in the G8. At the end of the day it would be hard to ignore it; as resources become more scarce in the world (and demand for them is driven constantly up by China, India & Co.), guess where everyone is going to look?

The Soviet economy was huge compared to most, although admitedly still only 35-40% of the American GDP. It is true that it relied too much on its oil and gas reserves. The huge drops in gas/oil prices over the 80's period probably was one of the most important reasons for the collapse of the USSR.

Well most of the facts in that article are wrong STAB, not that you will bother to check...

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Not yet they aren't.

Their economy is not yet large enough for them to actually be in the G8 but they have been included anyway - presumably in an attempt to make them feel less victimized (though I doubt if it has worked if Putin's continual petulant outbursts and ridiculous posturing are anything to go by).

The Soviet Union had all those oil and gas reserves too - but it didn't stop it being an economic basket case.

This will probably irritate the hell out of the expat Russia STRONG fanboys but it's an interesting alternative view of Russia IMO.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=OHIPYAHVJGBMTQFIQMGSFFOAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2007/08/23/wrussia223.xml

Good lord I agree with you. Something has gone wrong with the universe. p-)

[Trogdor]

The country isn't a superpower. If I had a precise definition of a powerhouse, then perhaps I could tell you if Russia is one, but as it stands I have no idea. It has a huge amount of challenges and problems to face, social & economical. But unlike let's say the 90's, the majority of these problems are becoming less and less significant, and the economy is roaring along in all directions.

In terms of economy, it is pretty large and is growing faster than all the other industrialised countries in the G8. At the end of the day it would be hard to ignore it; as resources become more scarce in the world (and demand for them is driven constantly up by China, India & Co.), guess where everyone is going to look?

The Soviet economy was huge compared to most, although admitedly still only 35-40% of the American GDP. It is true that it relied too much on its oil and gas reserves. The huge drops in gas/oil prices over the 80's period probably was one of the most important reasons for the collapse of the USSR.

Well most of the facts in that article are wrong STAB, not that you will bother to check...

Here's a challenge to you. Highlight most of those facts and show us why they're wrong.

[Solomin]

Russia's nuclear bombers are permanently airborne once again and President Vladimir Putin loses no opportunity to strut the world stage and flex his country's muscles.False: Putin has recently said he is going to stop the flights.


Yet all the sound and fury disguises one essential fact: far from being a rising power like China or India, Russia is locked in long-term decline.A complete misuse of statistics and language: What is the time line? Is long term since WW2? Since the Tzar? since 1980? "Torture the numbers long enough and they will confess to anything." The old saying goes.


Instead of the present level of 142 million, Russia will probably have fewer than 100 million people by 2050 and vast swathes of the country will be depopulated.Another misuse of statistics: There is a great deal of emmigration from Russia. This is the most significant portion of their population decrease. They have an educated class which was left jobless at the end of the cold war. Eventually this decline will taper off. To take a statistical analysis and make a claim such as: "This trend will continue forever, therefore I can make an estimate 40 some years in the future." is a bunch of BS and piss poor analysis. Of course I expect nothing more from a journalist.


The uncomfortable fact is that Russia is not a centre of innovation. There are no world class Russian manufacturing companies, no universities churning out new inventions.True, but not put into perspective: The US is the center of innovation and will be for a long time to come. Russia is the center of making things happen on a small budget. It takes time for foreign direct investment to fully take hold. At present MNCs are setting up shop, but it takes more capital such as an infrastructure to help facilitate this. Russia is not exactly falling behind in terms of technology. Sure they aren't going discover the cure for AIDS or Cancer, but to say they are not churning out new inventions, basically labeling them irrelevant is simply wrong.


Instead, the economy is largely resource-dependent and rises or falls with global energy prices. In other words, Mr Putin has virtually no control over Russia's economic destiny. The vagaries of the world energy market will decide how belligerent he can afford to be.This ****ing journalist really knows nothing about economics: Russia's economy is affected by energy prices? WEIRD! OURS TOO! Economics 101: You make a product, called your output. Your output requires inputs. If inputs change, so does your output. Russia sells inputs. Supply and Demand changes on the output and the input. If the price falls, supply increases and the quantity demanded increases. Price changes. Russia sells more at a lower price. BUT WHAT IF PEOPLE DON'T WANT MORE GAS AND OIL? Two reasons. 1.) China and India, this should be self explanatory. 2.) If an input becomes cheaper industry will move towards that inputs and move away from it's alternatives.

Remember way back when? I don't, I'm 24. Ask your grandpa if he is still alive what types of jobs people worked back in his day. Ask him what his father did. America was originally a resource rich country. We still are, but until the 1920s we were farmers, miners, whalers, also know as labor intensive jobs. Russia has an up on the old us, they have a labor intensive advantage while having a higher level of education.

Keep in mind it is completely conceivable Putin will ruin it all much like some South American countries.

What this journalist has done is exactly what they are good at. He wrote a manipulative article and threw some statistics in to look like he is credible.

[Flamming_Python]

Here's a challenge to you. Highlight most of those facts and show us why they're wrong.

I'll highlight the facts that are wrong in bold. As for showing why they're wrong, i'll leave that to you to research. Lord knows I spent enough time on this forum explaining such things:


Russia's nuclear bombers are permanently airborne once again and President Vladimir Putin loses no opportunity to strut the world stage and flex his country's muscles.

Yet all the sound and fury disguises one essential fact: far from being a rising power like China or India, Russia is locked in long-term decline. At present, high oil prices give Russia's economy a temporary lift - and afford Mr Putin the cash to display his military prowess.

But demographics underlie every dimension of national power. Mr Putin cannot avoid the fact that Russia's population falls by about 800,000 people every year.

Instead of the present level of 142 million, Russia will probably have fewer than 100 million people by 2050 and vast swathes of the country will be depopulated.

Nations with a real chance of shaping events in the late 21st century do not have falling populations. National decline is virtually guaranteed by low life expectancy, alcohol abuse and the remarkable fact that Russian women experience more abortions than live births.

Power in the 21st century will divide between America's 300 million people, the European Union's 460 million and China and India with more than a billion each. Against this background, Russia looks insignificant.

Mr Putin's second Achilles Heel is the Russian economy. Its dependence on oil and natural gas is a blessing when, as now, prices are high. If prices fall or a long period of volatility begins, Mr Putin will quickly feel the pinch.

The uncomfortable fact is that Russia is not a centre of innovation. There are no world class Russian manufacturing companies, no universities churning out new inventions.

Instead, the economy is largely resource-dependent and rises or falls with global energy prices. In other words, Mr Putin has virtually no control over Russia's economic destiny. The vagaries of the world energy market will decide how belligerent he can afford to be.

Hence Russia's gross national product is only about £800 billion. Britain, with less than half its population, has one worth £1.3 trillion.

While every rattle of Mr Putin's sabre raises new memories of the Cold War, today's military situation does not compare with the era of the Iron Curtain.

In those days, Central Europe was a Russian fiefdom and the Kremlin deployed 18 armoured divisions in the old East Germany, projecting its military power to the geographical centre of Europe.

Today, by contrast, the satellite states are independent. Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, once republics of the Soviet Union, are members of both the EU and Nato.

Nato's eastern border is now a short drive from St Petersburg. These fundamental realities betray Russia's essential weakness - which Mr Putin is doing his utmost to mask.

[Trogdor]

I'll highlight the facts that are wrong in bold. As for showing why they're wrong, i'll leave that to you to research. Lord knows I spent enough time on this forum explaining such things:

Facts aren't wrong and since you're too lazy to do your own research, I'm not very impressed at your position being credible here.

"The guy is lying but it's not up to me to show you how he is lying.". Contrary to this example, the onus is on you to back up your claims.

I'll address your unbacked claims with a simple numerical system that corresponds to the bold statements you made on a linear basis.

1) High Oil prices clearly provide temporary economic lifts. Oil Prices fluctuate and as seen with the Canadian and even more so with the Albertan economy, the fluctuation in Oil represents a fluctuation in economic gain relative to the resource. Alberta has a lot of Oil but if production slows down or the price of Oil drops, the economic gain fluctuates. The lifts are temporary because Oil doesn't stay fixed nor does it stay high.

Take a look at any economic report from Alberta, Canada or Russia to clearly see the lifts are not permanent.

2) Russia's population growth rate is ~0.5% according to the World Factbook. Additionally, they have a very low birth rate and that birth rate is lower than their death rate in comparison. Russia has a very low rate of positive net migration.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html

Interestingly, a decrease of 0.5% out of approximately 143 Million people is ~715 000 people lost.

So while not 800 000 people like he stated (he should declare his figures though in determining such a number), he's not too far off. I suspect he referenced this (indirectly) http://www.nbr.org/publications/issue.aspx?ID=164 to get his numbers.

3) These guys report a decrease of 22% between now and 2050.
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-03/2006-03-08-voa29.cfm

Then again the United Nations has warned that Russia could lose 1/3 of its population by 2050 and that means it will drop from 143 000 000 to about 100 000 000 as he stated.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5056672.stm

4) Since Russia's Oil Wealth isn't constant and fluctuating market prices make Oil and Natural Gas volatile, he is accurate in his assessment. If they drop and remain low, Putin will feel this pinch because he'll be spending more money than his cabinet had forecasted to take in.

5) Since the price of Oil fluctuates on the global market and Russia has a large dependency on Oil Exports, Putin's control becomes limited. In essence, he can only create structure and reform that will work towards long term effects. Seeing as how he isn't in power forever, his control is virtually limited. Couple this with a negative rate in population growth, moderate unemployment, high underemployment, and a rapidly expanding global trade movement, Russia under Putin has it a lot harder than you think. Sure he can raise taxes to take in more money but seeing as how a lot of Russia is still poor, this will not be beneficial. Creating more jobs doesn't happen over night either.

6) If Russia's PPP GDP is $1.7 Trillion US, adjusting that for their PPP GNP is closer to $1.6 Trillion US and since the British Pound compared to the US Greenback is near 2:1 then 800 Billion Pounds is reasonable.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html

Then again I didn't see him state the exchange rate anywhere so where is your discrepancy?

[Solomin]

Care to respond to any of the points I made?

[Trogdor]

Care to respond to any of the points I made?


Other than cutting and pasting from my last post, your "points" do not appear directed at me. You're focused on attacking the journalist more than his points. When you focus on his points, you appear to make blanket statements and attempt to use anecdotes as support. Interestingly, not a single source is provided by you to support your claims. Why is that?

[Solomin]

Other than cutting and pasting from my last post, your "points" do not appear directed at me. You're focused on attacking the journalist more than his points. When you focus on his points, you appear to make blanket statements and attempt to use anecdotes as support. Interestingly, not a single source is provided by you to support your claims. Why is that?

Yes, I do make some hits at the journalist. He invites them. Whenever I did so I only did in addition to an argument I made. An anecdote would be something like: "I was almost run off the road by a blond chick on her cellphone, therefore blond chicks on cell phones are bad drivers." An anecdote is one real incident and they are obviously bad points as they, by them selves, are not representative proof of the whole. I poke fun at the journalist, yes, but the only anecdote I make at the end and is rather irrelevant to the my points. It's also important to note, even though I do make an anecdote, remember, one incident is an anecdote, but multiple anecdotes is a pattern.

My Points Recapped

1.) The journalists claims Putin will not stop the bomber flights, Putin has.

2.) The journalist makes a statistical claim but leaves out any hint of what 'long term' is. This makes the statement practically irrelevant for any academic discussion as it has no context.

3.) The journalist, at least I assume, is basing this prediction on a scientific study. However, any has ever done any serious work in statistics will tell you what he has done is a 'no no'. To assume that a trend will simply continue without any justification is ridiculous.

4.) China and India will continue to have increasing energy demands for the next 50 years. Russia will not have to worry much about short term fluctuations as they have meeting the rising demand in the long term.

5.) I'm sorry I didn't provide any sources for my claims on innovation and creativity. I don't want to toot my own horn here, but simply explain why I don't feel the necessity to provide multiple sources to back myself up. I have a B.S. in Economics and a B.A. in Political Science and am currently pursuing my M.P.P. I have had to read roughly hundred different books and a couple hundred more articles and essays in my 5 and half years of school. I'm not going to sift through all of these writings to back up a claim I am making on a message board. It's a website, not the Journal of Foreign Affairs. I understand, I am not an expert on International Political Economy or Russia for that matter, but I do have some significant knowledge of the topic in question. I guarantee I know more about it than the journalist who wrote the article.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Russian jitters as investors take flight


By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Last Updated: 1:27am BST 31/08/2007


Fears that Russia's banking system could be vulnerable to a sudden downturn have led to a surge in capital outflows over the past two weeks, triggering the sharpest fall in the country's reserves since the oil boom began.
Foreign currency reserves have fallen $6.4bn (£3.2bn) since mid-August, despite vast revenues from oil and gas exports. Capital inflows had been running at about $7bn a month until August.
The central bank has intervened aggressively in recent days to stave off a possible credit crunch, injecting a record $10.6bn into the banking system on Tuesday.

In a move that has raised eyebrows, it is also selling dollars to support the ruble, spending $4bn on August 21 alone.

The deputy-governor, Gennady Melikyan, said there was now a risk of a banking crisis in parts of the system, warning that the banks had tempted fate by borrowing more than $110bn abroad to invest in the ruble market.

"They've stuffed their vaults to the maximum with loans in foreign currencies," he said, warning that a dollar rebound would leave them seriously exposed. Russian Standard Bank's portfolio of foreign loans exceeds 71pc of its balance sheet, according to Fitch Ratings.

Mr Melikyan, known for his stern lectures on Russia's credit boom, said there was no danger of a full-fledged default crisis on the lines of 1998 since the country now has a war chest of $414bn of reserves - the world's third biggest. Total foreign debt is $340bn.

It is widely assumed that Russia's energy reserves would provide the economy with a huge cushion of support but analysts say public spending is increasingly soaking up the wealth. The fiscal picture could deteriorate fast if oil falls below $50 a barrel.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml;jsessionid=PEDUUCEHG1HNHQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQWIV0?xml=/money/2007/08/31/cnrussia131.xml

[Trogdor]

Yes, I do make some hits at the journalist. He invites them. Whenever I did so I only did in addition to an argument I made. An anecdote would be something like: "I was almost run off the road by a blond chick on her cellphone, therefore blond chicks on cell phones are bad drivers." An anecdote is one real incident and they are obviously bad points as they, by them selves, are not representative proof of the whole. I poke fun at the journalist, yes, but the only anecdote I make at the end and is rather irrelevant to the my points. It's also important to note, even though I do make an anecdote, remember, one incident is an anecdote, but multiple anecdotes is a pattern.

He doesn't invite the attacks and you afforded him a lot of attacks. A pattern of anecdotes are still anecdotes.


My Points Recapped

1.) The journalists claims Putin will not stop the bomber flights, Putin has.

And still, no source.


2.) The journalist makes a statistical claim but leaves out any hint of what 'long term' is. This makes the statement practically irrelevant for any academic discussion as it has no context.
He doesn't have to define long term nor does he have to hint at it. Alas he does. He defines the scope. He lists future dates and you acknowledge it, right before you deny it. Flip-flop and a fail.


3.) The journalist, at least I assume, is basing this prediction on a scientific study. However, any has ever done any serious work in statistics will tell you what he has done is a 'no no'. To assume that a trend will simply continue without any justification is ridiculous.

So rather than this being a solid base in your argument, you're merely assuming. He isn't assuming anything here (but you are don't forget) but he is stating something that is probable given things like the UN report that shows Russia is poised to depopulate for years to come. Interestingly enough, he's a journalist and he's not making a scientific study here although it appears you wanted him to. At the same time, your very weak argument isn't holding up.



4.) China and India will continue to have increasing energy demands for the next 50 years. Russia will not have to worry much about short term fluctuations as they have meeting the rising demand in the long term.

Short Term fluctuations is not what I, nor the journalist was talking about. Fluctuations in pricing and demand will continue to occur, whether in 5 months, 5 years, or 5 decades. Prices and demand will continue to fluctuate day in and day out.

It's nonsense to say Russia will not have to worry about short term fluctuations. That is akin to saying Russia would not have to care, but they do have to. If they overspend now, they're screwed if a short term fluctuation sees a rapid decline. Then again why else would they have financial reserves in place to handle windfall profits? So they don't take as big of a hit if something goes bad short or long term.


5.) I'm sorry I didn't provide any sources for my claims on innovation and creativity. I don't want to toot my own horn here, but simply explain why I don't feel the necessity to provide multiple sources to back myself up. I have a B.S. in Economics and a B.A. in Political Science and am currently pursuing my M.P.P. I have had to read roughly hundred different books and a couple hundred more articles and essays in my 5 and half years of school. I'm not going to sift through all of these writings to back up a claim I am making on a message board. It's a website, not the Journal of Foreign Affairs. I understand, I am not an expert on International Political Economy or Russia for that matter, but I do have some significant knowledge of the topic in question. I guarantee I know more about it than the journalist who wrote the article.


Good for you on your academic achievements but they are no excuse to avoid bolstering your claims. Your prior post lacked innovation and creativity. Nothing you have said has been innovative or creative. Upon reviewing it, I see a lot of attacks on the journalist and a failure to produce support for your claims and that's about it.

Interestingly for significant knowledge of the topic at hand you sure have a hard time demonstrating a rebuttal to what he's said. As for your guarantee, I challenge you to deliver on it. So far you've failed twice but I do not mind you taking more time to better demonstrate yourself. I understand this is the internet but that is not an excuse to dodge credibility.

Pony up, less attacks on him and more attacks on his points. Perhaps in turn you should address my points supporting his statements as a start.

[Flamming_Python]

Russian jitters as investors take flight


By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Last Updated: 1:27am BST 31/08/2007


Fears that Russia's banking system could be vulnerable to a sudden downturn have led to a surge in capital outflows over the past two weeks, triggering the sharpest fall in the country's reserves since the oil boom began.
Foreign currency reserves have fallen $6.4bn (£3.2bn) since mid-August, despite vast revenues from oil and gas exports. Capital inflows had been running at about $7bn a month until August.
The central bank has intervened aggressively in recent days to stave off a possible credit crunch, injecting a record $10.6bn into the banking system on Tuesday.

In a move that has raised eyebrows, it is also selling dollars to support the ruble, spending $4bn on August 21 alone.

The deputy-governor, Gennady Melikyan, said there was now a risk of a banking crisis in parts of the system, warning that the banks had tempted fate by borrowing more than $110bn abroad to invest in the ruble market.

"They've stuffed their vaults to the maximum with loans in foreign currencies," he said, warning that a dollar rebound would leave them seriously exposed. Russian Standard Bank's portfolio of foreign loans exceeds 71pc of its balance sheet, according to Fitch Ratings.

Mr Melikyan, known for his stern lectures on Russia's credit boom, said there was no danger of a full-fledged default crisis on the lines of 1998 since the country now has a war chest of $414bn of reserves - the world's third biggest. Total foreign debt is $340bn.

It is widely assumed that Russia's energy reserves would provide the economy with a huge cushion of support but analysts say public spending is increasingly soaking up the wealth. The fiscal picture could deteriorate fast if oil falls below $50 a barrel.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml;jsessionid=PEDUUCEHG1HNHQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQWIV0?xml=/money/2007/08/31/cnrussia131.xml

Well it is widely assumed among financial circles, that this will blow over pretty soon.

http://www.kommersant.com/p800103/macroeconomics_financial_crisis/


Some Speculative Bucks Stay in Russia
The first data on the outflow of speculative capital from Russia in August because of the worldwide crisis in liquidity were published by the Central Bank yesterday. Gold and currency reserves decreased only $900 million, 0.2 percent, between August 18 and 24, while the Bank was expecting a drop of $3-4 billion. Two weeks earlier, there had been a $5.5-billion reduction. Sources at the Finance Ministry estimated that the outflow of capital for the entire month reached $9.1 billion, which is half of what analysts were predicting in the heat of the crisis.
A Finance Ministry source released figures concerning the outflow of capital from Russia yesterday. According to that information, the net outflow of capital for the week of August 10 to 17 was $4.6 billion. From August 17 to 24, it was 4.4 billion. Between August 3 and 10, there was an influx of $2.4 billion. None of the numbers are precise, since there is no data available yet on the balance of trade. Nonetheless, it is clear that expectations of capital outflow were exaggerated.

It is too early to determine the long-range development of the situation on the world market. Assessments are still being made in the European Union and United States of the losses on the subprime mortgage market and in collateralized debt obligations, which will determine the scope of future problems on European financial markets. The crucial phase of the crisis showed that the Central Bank of Russia was able to manage a threat of that magnitude. The Bank has yet to reduce its estimate of the influx of capital for the year, which remain at the level of two months ago, $70 billion.

[Thor]

maybe a new G4( USA,EU,Japan and China) should be a better alternative!
if the big 4 can cooperate,they surely can easily manage global economy better and more efficient than G8.
Actually I think that is an excellent idea. It much better reflects the relative powers in world. They also represent four very stable entities and it would mean a much easier decision making process as well.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Actually I think that is an excellent idea. It much better reflects the relative powers in world. They also represent four very stable entities and it would mean a much easier decision making process as well.

I think that's a great idea too.
And watching Putin's tantrums as a result of being 'edged out' would be quite amusing.

[Flamming_Python]

Keep dreaming. Russia won't be kicked out of the G8.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Keep dreaming. Russia won't be kicked out of the G8.

Yes I think they'll let VVP stay for comedy value.

[Flamming_Python]

Yes I think they'll let VVP stay for comedy value.

VVP is too serious for comedy. Now Yeltsin; there was a comedian if I ever saw one :D

[Thor]

Keep dreaming. Russia won't be kicked out of the G8.
They weren't really invited on merit.

It's diplomacy and hence everyone or no one will be kicked out. They would probably vote to dissolve the G8 in favour of a new G4 and the already existing G20.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

VVP is too serious for comedy. Now Yeltsin; there was a comedian if I ever saw one :D

No
VVP takes himself very seriously - which is in itself great comedy value for us Brits.
And his petulant outbursts are rather amusing.
Then there's the walting it up in camouflage gear on his Brokeback mountain holiday.
The boy's definitely got potential.

[Flamming_Python]

No
VVP takes himself very seriously - which is in itself great comedy value for us Brits.
And his petulant outbursts are rather amusing.
Then there's the walting it up in camouflage gear on his Brokeback mountain holiday.
The boy's definitely got potential.

OK True, the guy does stand to be taken the mickey out of quite severely, for his shirtless parade across the the Siberian mountains :D