Market Leader informed
The virus of color revolutions that has taken over the Muslim world drives leading news media of the world to start publishing their own forecasts of how this trend will evolve in the future.
These forecasts are absurd inasmuch as western analysts are unclear about the nature of these revolutions, as explain experts of the US Land Association of the Masterforex-V Trading Academy. They still cannot understand why the Middle East and North Africa are 'in a fever'. If they understood this key thing (revolution criteria are unclear, so, they feel neither the strength of the trend nor its vector), serious western media would have already started publishing forecasts... as to where the next revolution will take place.
The New York Times: next revolutions will occur in Algeria, Russia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and Venezuela
US largest media outlet, The New York Times, recently published a feature by CHRYSTIA FREELAND, 'Sizing Up Revolutions in Waiting'. Here the American journalist makes a number of important discoveries that 'raze all western analytics to the ground. It turns out:
• all famous experts of the west 'missed' revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt (to say nothing of Libya). As a result, first IMF analysts gave the most favorable forecast about Egypt, and then CIA Director Leon Panetta repeated this mistake during his speech before the US Congress;
• American intelligence agencies and military expected revolutions 'absolutely in the wrong place', having spent $125 million on a variety of computer models over the past three years intended to forecast public unrest. But neither Egypt nor Tunisia was in the 'risk area';
• it is impossible to accurately forecast future public unrest, Chrystia Freeland admits. However, she offers criteria you can use to determine its high likelihood or 'potential for rebellion';
• in their calculations of 'potential for rebellion', Chrystia Freeland and her colleague, Peter Rudegeair, used four main criteria:
- political freedom;
- corruption;
- vulnerability to food price shocks;
- and Internet penetration.
For some reason, The New York Times journalist doesn't set out the exact results of her research but admits that Egypt, Libya (which is already obvious), Algeria, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Venezuela and, most importantly, Russia made it to the Top Ten countries where a revolution should be expected.
According to The New York Times logic, countries that have been in a fever for decades, such as Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Pakistan have stability while non-Muslim Russia and Venezuela, as always, 'are skating on thin ice'. The journalist doesn't even write about other countries from the 'explosive Top Twenty' as the main point has been made: "the next revolution is in Russia"! Proof? What proof!
That the situation in Russia is, to put it mildly, not quite simple (terrorism, ethnic conflicts, the continuing division of society into authority and oligarchs, on the one hand, and the rest of the people, on the other, etc) is admitted by Russian authorities themselves, as explain analysts of the Land Association of Russia and Arab Countries within the Masterforex-V Academy. But for such a respectable publication as The New York Times to write that the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Lebanon, Pakistan... there's little science here and more ideology and propaganda which is, by the way, accepted by Americans absolutely literally.
Such increased interest in the post-Soviet area and openly anti-American regimes has done American analysts quite a few bad turns already. In this case narrow-mindedness persists like it has always done. Failing to understand the nature of revolutions in openly pro-western Tunisia and Egypt, The New York Times observers run a high risk of 'missing' another revolution, according to Yevgeniy Olkhovskiy, Head of the Land Association of Canada within the Masterforex-V Academy.
Where does The Wall Street Journal expect the next revolution to occur?
Alen Mattich, the observer of popular tabloid The Wall Street Journal, did his homework more seriously. He defined 85(!) countries of the world that run a certain risk of revolutions. His research looks more accurate because:
a) the list includes not only US rivals and competitors but also allies, i.e. the author doesn't replace the real with the wanted;
b) the countries' explosiveness rating is based on a much more profound analysis than Ms. Freeland's 'calculations'.
Alen Mattich refers to the following criteria which, when combining, might provoke other revolutions in the world:
1. social unfairness in society (in turn, it is made up of corruption rates and perceptions, human development potential and the dispersion of wealth in a society);
2. propensity to revolt (includes the population’s median age, unemployment rate in the country and GDP per capita);
3. the share that food makes up as a percentage of household final expenditure, known worldwide as the 'hunger riot' criterion.
As befits a serious researcher, Alen Mattich says beforehand that he had no opportunity to obtain relevant figures for a number of countries (Angola, Congo, Zimbabwe, Mauritania, Tanzania, Uganda, North Korea, Myanmar), so his list doesn't include them.
The Full Revolting Index, The Wall Street Journal, Alen Mattich
Of course, one could argue for a long time as to above selection criteria and positions that countries hold in this list, explains our expert Yevgeniy Antipenko (ATEI). For example:
• "propensity of a country's population to revolt" is a very relative concept which is practically impossible to calculate. That people organized disorders a few years ago under former authorities says nothing about the likelihood of repetition on a larger scale, even on the contrary. Still, the law of accumulation and discharge of energy applies to this sphere, too;
• this criterion being 'subjective' it isn't clear why Azerbaijan is placed 10th, and Ukraine 22nd because those who felt absurdity of any national protests 7-15 years ago are unlikely to play the same game again. Indicators should lead rather than lag behind, in the stock market and political science alike;
• the author's desire to be unbiased is supported by the fact that the US is placed 70th, or more likely to revolt than Canada, Singapore, Germany and Switzerland.
• in general, the list is very interesting. Its relative accuracy is also supported by the fact that Belarus comes 29th, China - 30th, Russia - as low as 40th.
Market Leader suggests a survey for the situation to be assessed in a more unbiased manner on the traders and investors forum: Should analysts of the leading western publication be trusted?
• yes, if forecasts are based on unbiased analysis rather than for another manipulation;
• no, all ratings are compiled at somebody's request and in somebody's interests;
• it is impossible to predict anything in the principle. All these ratings are like 'fortune-telling', revolutions break out where no analyst expects them.
You are free to discuss this article here: forum for traders and investors
No comments:
Post a Comment