Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
Graphic Truth
In 2001, a Goldman Sachs economist coined an acronym for the four largest and most promising “emerging market” economies: Brazil, Russia, India, and China became known as the “BRIC” countries.
Five years later, reality imitated art when the countries decided to begin meeting regularly at “BRIC summits,” with the latest occurring in Kazan, Russia, this week. The subsequent inclusion of South Africa upgraded the “s” to a capital letter: the BRICS.
The group, which lacks formal treaties or binding obligations, has always been united more by what it opposes — US dominance of global financial systems — than by what it supports.
After all, it’s a hodgepodge: energy exporters (Brazil and Russia) and importers (China and India), democracies (India and Brazil) and non-democracies (China and Russia), allies (Russia ❤️China) and adversaries (India x China).
But the economic clout of the group is, on paper, formidable. With the addition of Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates this year, the BRICS+ economies account for 36% of global GDP – while the G7 group of wealthy democracies amount to just 29%. But, of course, there’s a catch: China and the US each contribute more than half of their respective group’s GDP.
Here’s a look at the economic size, and breakdown, of the BRICS+ and the G7 group it hopes one day to eclipse — not only economically but also geopolitically.
A woman in the US is nearly twice as likely to die from pregnancy-related causes as a woman in Canada. Compared to Japan, Germany, or Italy, the rate is nearly five times higher.
The United States, in fact, has the worst maternal mortality rate of any high-income country in the world. On average in the G7 group of wealthy democracies, nine pregnant women out of every 100,000 will die as a result of pregnancy or childbirth. In the US, it’s more than 21.
Experts point to a range of factors. One is a lack of adequate care during and after pregnancy, including from midwives or doulas, two professions virtually unknown in the US that have been shown to improve maternal health outcomes elsewhere. According to a recent study on America’s maternal health crisis by the Commonwealth Fund, a philanthropy that supports independent health care research, there are just four midwives per 1,000 live births in the US. In Sweden, where maternal mortality is virtually unknown, there are 80.
The US also stands out for its lack of mandatory paid maternity leave, which is shown to support maternal health by helping women manage the stresses of new parenthood.
Lastly, there are pronounced racial disparities in the US: Maternal death rates among Black women are 2.5 times as high as those for white women, and four times higher than Asian Americans. Higher mortality rates for Black women persist even when corrected for educational level, a loose proxy for income.
Here is a look at how maternal mortality rates compare across the G7 countries, with a comparison also to the average in the OECD, a wider grouping of higher-income countries.
Latinos make up the largest minority group in the US, accounting for nearly 15% of eligible voters. They are also one of the fastest-expanding electoral forces – first-time Latino voters account for half of the growth in US eligible voters since 2020.
Historically, Latinos have leaned Democrat – a Republican presidential candidate has never won the Latino vote. The closest any GOP candidate has come was George W. Bush, who took 40%.
But over the past several election cycles, Latino support for the GOP has been rising. Former President Donald Trumpcurrently polls at 39% among Latinos. If that holds through Election Day, it would represent an 11-point Trumpward swing since he ran for president in 2016. Here is a look at how Latinos have voted in every US presidential election since 1980, along with their share of the electorate in each year.In Canada and the United States, the trend of living alone has been steadily increasing, driven by declining marriage rates, delayed family formation, increased life expectancy, and greater financial independence.
In 2022 in the US, nearly 30% of households were occupied by only one person, at 28.88%. In 2021, 29% of Canadian households were single-person – the highest share on record. In 1960, those percentages were just 13% and 9.3% respectively for both countries.
Studies have linked living alone to higher rates of depression, and among older adults – who make up the predominant share of single-person households – increased risks of cardiovascular disease, dementia, and premature mortality.
Living alone also contributes to the loneliness epidemic plaguing both countries. US Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy wrote last year that at any moment, one out of every two Americans is experiencing measurable levels of loneliness and called for a national effort to combat the problem. A survey of Canadians found that 40% of the population feels lonely some or all of the time.
Still, if you think it’s bad in the US and Canada, single-living rates are much higher around the world. Take a look.
So you’ve heard of Bidenomics, but what about burgernomics? Allow us to introduce you to the Big Mac Index, which uses the price of a McDonald's Big Mac to assess whether currencies are over- or undervalued relative to the US dollar.
The index shows purchasing (patty) power, or the gap between productivity and living standards, between countries. It compares the local price of a Big Mac in different countries, converted to US dollars. But it's also a good measure of inflation – a hot topic for the US election, with Kamala Harris and Donald Trump both arguing that they have been better stewards of the economy. Of course, both administrations were majorly affected by COVID, which also had an impact on Big Mac prices.
Before the pandemic, you could buy a Big Mac for $4.82 – or a crisp $5 bill with change to spare, but today, you pay $5.69. This might seem like a win for Trump, but in terms of wages, the story is more complicated. In 2020, an average worker could afford about five Big Macs with an hour’s pay, but now, one hour of work could buy you 5.4 Big Macs. This reflects how, since March 2023, wage growth has outpaced inflation, with the average American’s hourly pay increasing by 5.9%, while prices have jumped just 4.1%.
The two main political parties have also gotten more diverse, but one has done so much faster than the other. In 1996, 77% of Democrats and 93% of Republicans were white. Since then, white representation in the Democratic party has fallen more than 20 points. In the GOP, it fell 14 points.
Here’s a look at how the racial and ethnic composition of the US population and parties have changed over the past three decades.
Want more? There’s only one demographic subgroup in America in which a majority considers diversity to be a “threat.” Can you guess which it is? See Alex Kliment’s recent column on that here.UN Peacekeeping is all about helping countries navigate the often rocky transition out of violent conflict, with the hope of laying the groundwork for a lasting peace. For over 70 years, peacekeepers have been deployed around the world to help maintain security, protect civilians and human rights, and oversee peace processes. There are currently 11 active peacekeeping missions around the world.
Canada played a central role in the early development of UN Peacekeeping. In 1957, Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs Lester B. Pearson was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his vital role in establishing a UN Emergency Force that helped resolve the Suez Crisis of 1956 in Egypt.
UN Peacekeeping is financed by UN member states — and has a budget of roughly $6.4 billion — with countries like the US, China, and Japan among the top financial contributors. Meanwhile, the biggest contributors of personnel to UN Peacekeeping are Bangladesh, Nepal, and India. Do you think UN Peacekeeping is worth all that goes into it? We’d love to hear from you!