Answering the evidence on the internet that said that North Korea had built missiles with money stolen from bitcoins by hackers, this evening news announced that 2 mi bitcoins had been stolen from North Korea (tv Cultura/Brazil).
The Leader is probably provoking our political scientists, by meaning that the 2 mi bitcoin subtracted from their accounts would be the amount to be paid for the agreements once discussed upon a possible denuclearization proposal in exchange of stocks in the TISEA.
First of all, the bitcoins are a virtual currency, not up to Trade neither in the official or illegal International market of massive Goods. The bitcoins are for personal use and for some transactions of small companies only, serving as a "stock market of currencies in little transactions".
Second of all, the sustainable possibilities for North Korea -
https://tarafatosefilosofia.blogspot.com/2017/12/a-country-which-i-cant-imagine-how-it-is.html
http://tarafatosefilosofia.blogspot.com/2019/04/north-korea-needs-and-dossier-for-world.html
(these are just some panorams that could be set for them), wouldn't and couldn't be paid off with bitcoins, this is just laughable.
The weapons of mass destruction North Korea have are a symbol of them holding technology, and by accepting denuclearization under observation of inspectors from abroad, their missiles would be taken away to be disposed somewhere safe (as the Arctic), and in exchange the North Korea would get stocks on Agribusiness, cattle, commodities, oil and automobile industry for consume and Trading, on counterpart to being inserted into a productive means of commercial demand up to their culture.
This Agreement could be the kick-off for another Agreement, which would substitute the demand of weapons bought by the Middle East from the USA (to finance the conflict in the Middle East), by stocks of Agribusiness, cattle, commodities, oil and automobile industry for consume and Trading with the BRICS. Through this Agreement, Brazil would assume the responsibility of producing more steel. A major part of stocks of steel and oil from BRICS would be sold to the Middle East, and then given a percentage to the USA to account for the financial loss during the times that the USA financed their conflict by selling weapons and having not enough oil in retribution (because the Middle East wanted Agribusiness and cattle instead).
The percentage of stocks given to the USA, and how many installments this financial settlement should last may by calcullated by mathematicians and economists of the USA-Japan-Germany-Russia together, not to harm any of the parts and to overflow goods and business both for the BRICS, Middle East and the USA (NATO).
The USA is not responsible for selling the weapons.
The USA have been demanded for goods of consumption since the end of the Great War. Though they are rich and powerful, they couldn't suffice for all the demand, and a culture of "terror for goods" have been generated, which extremist countries threat the USA in exchange for goods. The USA cannot force or indicate other countries to Trade with terrorists, that's unethical and imperialist. The Vietnam war demanded more weapons from the USA and this new market was fomented by the Gulf war until nowadays. This vicious circle has become a niche of Economy in the Middle East, however it is not possible to settle Trade Agreements on weapons, that are meant for killing and are not commercially sustainable. Opposed to what many may think, the Middle East don't want to continue to be inserted in this Economy either. They show signals of that by putting fire on oil reffinaries (the oil is the payment for the weapons). Still, they continue to threat with the production of enriched uranium, because they depend onto this economy nich to have the Goods they need.
If they would Trade with the BRICS for their goods by buying stocks of Agribusiness, cattle, commodities, oil and automobile industry for consume and by Trading the lowest tax rates, balanced scale for equivalent purchases, preference on oil commerce with high interest on the new pumps around the world (for example, building Texaco and Esso gas stations around the world by using Petrobras stocks that was sold to the Middle East) etc, the USA could one day be restituted from the financial loss they have been suffering by providing weapons under major threats and getting nothing in retribution during the Gulf War, The Iraq, The Afghanistan, The Iran and Syria. Besides, Russia - the moderator with whom the Middle East negotiates for their weapons' purchase - is a part of the BRICS and could make the calcullus along with USA-Japan-Germany (Germany and Japan as neutral participants, representing Economic Groups in Europe and Asia respectivelly).
I understand that China is part of the BRICS as well. But considering that through the conflicts in the Middle East only China wins from the profit of the Commerce of weapons (USA don't get the oil and China is Russia's partner because of the natural gas company, among other things). If Brazil and Mercosur are uplifted by giving more of our potential to our new partners through BRICS, only gain is provided by more steel production and other signals of Progress.
3) The Middle East would be facing glimpses of hope, however no money to invest in the Agreement for the BRICS. The truth is that the U.S. may be getting 'some' profit from the commerce of weapons with the Middle East, otherwise they wouldn't agree to produce the weapons (there is a cost to production). Still, this profit does not compensate for the demand the U.S. have.
The profit the USA have for such weapons come from an investor: Russia is the moderator that decides the amount of guns to be sent to the Middle East. And China is Russia's partner in the natural gas company. We have reasons to believe that this investment might be coming from China, upon benefit on the profit margin on the purchase and re-selling.
Thus, if the BRICS is called to offer products to the Middle East by means of stocks of Agribusiness/Commodities/Cattle/Oil for consumption and Trade, China is to use the money they apply on weapons, to support Brazil, India and South Africa instead, on investments in the industry, to supply the Middle East with their needs for consumption, reconstruction of economy and the needs of their commercial partners. This would be a bi-lateral Agreement, because in this settlement, APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) would use the money China is now using for guns for investment instead, within the BRICS, with a margin of profit allowed to return to Chinese economy. That's because China participates in both Economic Groups and could flex the money. The decision would also benefit Canadá, Philipines and Australia (APEC) with the injection of figures and implementation of more jobs in those countries.
Ordem e Progresso - Order and Progress
Brazil's flag
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EqYwYUbd4k
Att,
Thais Moraes
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário