Brazzil

How can the World Bank analysts be so precise for certain numbers and so vague when mentioning the 32 to 64 billions US$ ????

Furthermore the 3.1 billions US$ loss for Brazil is as you said...."could be as high as..." !!!! Worst case scenario, by definition. Because you used 3.1 billions loss based on the eventual 63 billions cost to developing countries. NUmbers would have been quite different if you used the best case scenario of 32 billions.

Therefore using a probable case (in between/average numbers), Brazil would still be a stand out winner.

As the 3.1 billions US$ is the worst case scenario, the number is based if the total loss for developing countries is 64 billions.

On a best case basis, using the 32 billions, the loss would equal to half the 3.1 billions plus the 130 and 530 millions. Or 2.21 billions US$ cost and a profit of 3.6 billions US$.

But another open problem in simple math is that 23 % (Brazil) of 16 billions (developing country gain) equals to 7.36 billions US$ gain for Brazil, not as written US$ 3.6 billions.

Mr Gallagher, please review your copy and be more specific.

Cheers

Look at the eyes of the guys who will "manage" 160Mmil.
They are sparkling like the dog star.
Problem to be faced:
How are we, the politicians, split this $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ among ourselves?

I WANT MY SHARE OF THE LOOT !!!!

...the sharing of the golden pot was already decided much earlier than even the WTO meeting.
The question is : HOW BIG WILL THE POT BE ??? HOW MUCH MORE WEALTHY A FEW OF YOU WILL BE ???

...come up with some patents of your own and then you, too, can reap the rewards of intellectual property!!

Or perhaps you would prefer that there be no vacines for India, for Brazil, for whomever, rather than have to pay for them to the Great Satan?