It by definition cannot work, you are taking money away from the people.

It used to be that austerity was necessary because the country was "broke" and employment was too high, that was the neoliberal rhetoric. Now, go akshually it improves the economy somehow despite increasing poverty and unemployment . How? No one knows

Anyone got the pdf?

Edit https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/read-the-jd-vance-dossier

he isn't wrong, look at the disaster that is the Eurozone. all the BRICS countries have different ideologies.

Jaishankar points out that bi-lateral currency deals work well enough and appear satisfactory to most BRICS members. That does leave unsolved the point that your humble blogger and Michael Hudson have raise: that absent mechanisms to encourage balanced trade such as the ones that were part of Keynes’ Bancor, many countries are likely to wind up with sustained trade deficits relative to particular trade partners. What happens when those countries wind up with a lot more of that currency than they want? They can use it to buy assets in the chronic trade deficit country, but a lot of nations do or would place restrictions.

I read this article recently and thought it was interesting

"What happens when those countries wind up with a lot more of that currency than they want?"

I mean the currency itself is an asset for the trade surplus country, it can sell it for other currencies too depending on the liquidity of forex markets. i don't think unbalanced trade is that bad either, smaller countries with less resources will run trade deficits when being helped out by larger allies. (Like Cuba and USSR). Of course, under capitalism the purpose of trade is for the exporting country to earn foreign currencies and dump excess supply, but that doesn't have to be the case.

The current cycle for global south countries is a cycle of external debt. Look at the UK, country is a shell of what it was and is only alive because the rest of the world wants to hold Pounds. If UK were a developing country, it would've seen a much worse collapse in living standards and probably a revolt.

Another example would be Gaza. Should Gaza be trying to run a trade surplus once Israel stops the genocide? Of course not, everyone else should be providing Gaza with the stuff it needs to get itself back up while providing for its people. This will show up as a current/trade deficit but it is a good thing.

Also, Indian oligarchs have been accumulating a shit ton of Dollar and Euro debt from Western banks, it's really bad.

Milei's deep cuts won support from investors and the markets, seen by many as necessary after years of fiscal deficits, rising inflation and economic instability.

"by many" doing a lot there.

this is the problem with 'tax' arguments, you don't look at how much land and water is being wasted.

😑

The solution is simple : state owned alternative with zero fees.

Nah. Your "landlording" is irrelevant.

Poland yuck

PBOC really needs a purge, filled with Neoliberals who believe in loanable funds bs. Lowering reserve requirements has never made any difference, it doesn't free up money for lending.

Even if it was assumed lowering reserve requirements would "free up" money for lending, what if people don't want a loan? What if they think they won't be able to pay back? What if they think the interest rate is too high and are waiting for lower rates?

its an ip grabbing site almunked dot com.

made by IDF for 'informing' almunked = the savior btw