No s.. Sherlock. It is starting to look more like a tantrum.
America’s aggressive use of sanctions endangers the dollar’s reign
31–40 of 326 posts
Re: America’s aggressive use of sanctions endangers the dollar’s reign
#32James Rikard (author of Currency Wars) in his newest book Aftermath predicts that the dollar's reserve currency run may soon be over, and special drawing rights (SDR) reserve currency might only be 1/3 dollars. I think he is probably correct on this prediction but maybe not on another prediction: currencies like China's and Russia's might soon be 20% backed by gold. He makes the point that there is no need for 100% b…
> currencies like China's and Russia's might soon be 20% backed by gold. He makes the point that there is no need for 100% backing from gold since a smaller percentage would still prevent a country from printing new currency out of thin air.
What is the conceptual difference between a currency that is 100% backed by gold and one that is 20% backed by gold? Or rather, what is the difference between a currency that is 20% backed by gold, and another currency that is (a) 100% backed by gold; and (b) worth five times as much as the first currency?
Re: America’s aggressive use of sanctions endangers the dollar’s reign
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's no such thing as a rules-based, open world. You're living in one right now. Anarchy need not be synonymous with chaos, especially if disputes and conflicts are relatively unimportant (due to easy defense making 'rights' self-enforcing). The point of courts is then to arbitrate disputes in a publicly-visible way, enforcement is relatively less important.
No, I’m living in a world dominated by American hegemony. International institutions like the UN are valuable but when the other Western countries tried to set up a rules-based international order after WWI it only lasted 20 years.
the reason the league of nations failed (in many, but not all regards) has more to do with the economic and geopolitical situation at the time then it being a non american institution.
the strife of the great depression and it's results on politics was probably it's biggest factor.
Re: America’s aggressive use of sanctions endangers the dollar’s reign
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
US opposition to a pipeline to Russia is confined to a small group of people who are strangely very friendly to Russia on all other matters. There is no widespread or popular opposition to Germany building a pipeline to Russia in the United States. This doesn't really treat with the dollar-denominated world economy but I wanted to point this out to differentiate the current irrational foreign policy of the US governm…
Wat? Pretty much all eastern/former communist block countries that are in the EU oppose it. That's almost 40% of the block. They can't directly confront Germany, but the US can, and it is doing so rightly. The project comprises the long term security of the Nato block, and the said countries have a major distrust towards Russia as it has they have suffered a lot under thier imposed communist regimes. For a bunch of s…
All those countries you mentioned are totally free to buy only from the US. Building a pipeline will not prevent anyone from buying gas from the US as long as it is competitive. The sanctions are mostly trying to strangle competitor/adversary and prop own industry using political means rather then market forces.
Re: America’s aggressive use of sanctions endangers the dollar’s reign
#35For the rest of the world this is a good thing. Why would the United States be the one to decide if Germany is allowed to build a pipeline to Russia or not? Image if it was Germany that used sanctions to prevent the US from building a pipeline to Mexico. Would you be ok with that?
US opposition to a pipeline to Russia is confined to a small group of people who are strangely very friendly to Russia on all other matters. There is no widespread or popular opposition to Germany building a pipeline to Russia in the United States. This doesn't really treat with the dollar-denominated world economy but I wanted to point this out to differentiate the current irrational foreign policy of the US governm…
> a small group of people who are strangely very friendly to Russia on all other matters.
Can you give actual examples of this friendliness? I see it cited very often but I don't know any concrete example. I know Trump has imposed new sanctions on Russia last September, that is sanctioning European companies for the Russia pipeline, and that he's doing anything that he can to destabilise Iran, which is supported by Russia. So it doesn't seem that friendly to me.
Re: America’s aggressive use of sanctions endangers the dollar’s reign
#36In reality it does not although would be nice if there were good alternatives.
Re: America’s aggressive use of sanctions endangers the dollar’s reign
#37James Rikard (author of Currency Wars) in his newest book Aftermath predicts that the dollar's reserve currency run may soon be over, and special drawing rights (SDR) reserve currency might only be 1/3 dollars. I think he is probably correct on this prediction but maybe not on another prediction: currencies like China's and Russia's might soon be 20% backed by gold. He makes the point that there is no need for 100% b…
> currencies like China's and Russia's might soon be 20% backed by gold. He makes the point that there is no need for 100% backing from gold since a smaller percentage would still prevent a country from printing new currency out of thin air. What is the conceptual difference between a currency that is 100% backed by gold and one that is 20% backed by gold? Or rather, what is the difference between a currency that is…
as compared to dollars, of course.
(alt s/dollars/bitcoin/)
Re: America’s aggressive use of sanctions endangers the dollar’s reign
#38James Rikard (author of Currency Wars) in his newest book Aftermath predicts that the dollar's reserve currency run may soon be over, and special drawing rights (SDR) reserve currency might only be 1/3 dollars. I think he is probably correct on this prediction but maybe not on another prediction: currencies like China's and Russia's might soon be 20% backed by gold. He makes the point that there is no need for 100% b…
>since a smaller percentage would still prevent a country from printing new currency out of thin air.
When people argue against bitcoin, they say that limiting the supply is a source of deflation and that deflation is risky for a currency.
Money can be used to store value but first of all, it is meant to exchange value. Don't you kill your economy with such a supply-limited currency since your economy cannot grow beyond your ability of acquiring gold?
Re: America’s aggressive use of sanctions endangers the dollar’s reign
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
> currencies like China's and Russia's might soon be 20% backed by gold. He makes the point that there is no need for 100% backing from gold since a smaller percentage would still prevent a country from printing new currency out of thin air. What is the conceptual difference between a currency that is 100% backed by gold and one that is 20% backed by gold? Or rather, what is the difference between a currency that is…
as compared to dollars, of course. (alt s/dollars/bitcoin/)
I don't understand this. Can you expand on it?
Re: America’s aggressive use of sanctions endangers the dollar’s reign
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's no such thing as a rules-based, open world. You're living in one right now. Anarchy need not be synonymous with chaos, especially if disputes and conflicts are relatively unimportant (due to easy defense making 'rights' self-enforcing). The point of courts is then to arbitrate disputes in a publicly-visible way, enforcement is relatively less important.
The only reason courts have authority to arbitrate disputes is because they are backed up by the will and authority of the government, which in turn has a monopoly on the use of force in society.
A de-facto monopoly on the use of force is a domain of easily-defended rights within a broader context of anarchy. The two notions are more or less equivalent. Going from that to matters of "legitimacy" or even "authority" is all about taking that state of things as given and building a sensible set of rules and institutions around it.