Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

America’s aggressive use of sanctions endangers the dollar’s reign

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 326 posts

Re: America’s aggressive use of sanctions endangers the dollar’s reign

#61

Post by jayd16 »

zozbot234 wrote: post #17
philwelch wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no such thing as a rules-based, open world. International relations is a state of anarchy and perpetual conflict that only fleetingly resembles peace during those periods where there's a global hegemon that can enforce those "rules". Within a country, those courts are the hegemon. "Each country having a strong interest in remaining within that system that outweighs any short-term benefits from skirting its re…

> 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.

There's no global government so there's no global court. The global/international level is considered anarchy.

Re: America’s aggressive use of sanctions endangers the dollar’s reign

#62

Post by rayiner »

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #3

It also endangers the basic principle of a rules-based, open world. If you think that's a good idea, imagine what happens to an economy when civil law and contracts are not enforced, even without any threat of violence. To pick just one example: if you're trying to get a loan to build a factory or buy a house, it's good for you that there are laws and trusted courts that would cause you a whole lot of pain if you fai…

> It also endangers the basic principle of a rules-based, open world.

You can’t endanger something that doesn’t exist. Sovereign countries exist amongst themselves in the state of nature.

Re: America’s aggressive use of sanctions endangers the dollar’s reign

#63

Post by SllX »

taurath wrote: post #52
jariel wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Why would the United States be the one to decide if Germany is allowed to build a pipeline to Russia or not?" Because America provides defence for Germany, and Russia has 1000 nuclear warheads pointed at Germany, the US and others, and they are an antagonising state, actively trying to disrupt the governments in Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine, etc. All these issues are quite fundamentally related, so it matters…

What is this protection that the US provides other than ensuring the US would be drawn into a war between the EU and Russia? France has enough nukes to provide MAD protection.

For one thing it keeps European countries within NATO from invading each other.

NATO isn’t just there to defend against Russia, it is effectively an unbroken continuous occupation of Europe by the US.

Re: America’s aggressive use of sanctions endangers the dollar’s reign

#64

Post by jariel »

taurath wrote: post #52
jariel wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Why would the United States be the one to decide if Germany is allowed to build a pipeline to Russia or not?" Because America provides defence for Germany, and Russia has 1000 nuclear warheads pointed at Germany, the US and others, and they are an antagonising state, actively trying to disrupt the governments in Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine, etc. All these issues are quite fundamentally related, so it matters…

What is this protection that the US provides other than ensuring the US would be drawn into a war between the EU and Russia? France has enough nukes to provide MAD protection.

"What is this protection that the US provides"

The US has bases all over Europe, they spend a fortune on their own defensive tech, capabilities and leadership which Germany et. al. depend on, which acts as a massive deterrent, but also provides security partners with 'almost free R&D'. Also, the US specialises and practices so many things that are just far beyond the reach of pretty much all European forces.

The ability to put bases, air support of all kinds, intelligence, drones, etc. pretty much anywhere is basically beyond most of Europe. When a war broke out on their border (Libya), for better or worse there was an intervention. Obama reluctantly agreed and didn't want to play a lead role, but without US drones, AWACS, and electronic warfare, special forces on the ground, the UK and French fighters wouldn't have been able to do anything at all. This is actually quite a good demonstration of how specific capabilities are huge enablers of others.

Trump's NATO talking point about partners not spending enough is very fair, and most European nations are in violation of the treaty, which is doubly problematic because while NATO is strategically beneficial to the US, it's basically vital to European integrity -> they need it more than the US and spend only 1/2 of what was agreed upon.

If the US simply 'did not exist' - Russian Imperialism would reach just about as far as in the Soviet era. Basically, Poland would be back to being the 'buffer' between Germany and Russia.

Everyone in the 1990's thought all of that would melt with the cold war, unfortunately, neither China nor Russia moved along the expected path, so here we are.

American sanctions of Iran are not remotely big enough to make a dent in currency issues.

I do however think that as finance spreads into different areas, Americans will have more difficulty with said sanctions. Dubai exists as a financial centre basically because it's outside the direct influence or insight of American or European agencies. It's basically an entire micro-economy of dirty money.

Re: America’s aggressive use of sanctions endangers the dollar’s reign

#65

Post by mattrp »

augstein wrote: post #45
Spooky23 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn’t in the US or NATO interest for Germany to be dependent on Russian oil. Current US policy, to the extent that we have policy today, is a whole other matter.

It’s about Russian natural gas, not oil. About 25% of Germany’s primary energy are produced from gas, of which about 40% come from Russia (down from about 50% in 1995).[1] The US sanctions against the Nord Stream project are seen by a number of Germans as a rather clumsy attempt to push the sale of their expensive liquified natural gas, which to a high degree is produced by hydraulic fracking.[2] 1) https://translate…

Talk about clumsy, I seem to remember Russia turning off the gas back in the 90s and everyone was surprised at just how easily nato’s entire infrastructure could be held ransom by the flick of a switch. The issue basically boils down to the survivability of US/NATO operations. And the Germans ambivalence - what with Gerard Schroeder essentially doing a crony deal for nordstream directly underscores that Germans know what we really care about is military survivability. Pretty much every foreign policy decision the US has made since the gas debacle has been to find alternatives to Russian oil. Admitting Georgia to NATO, supporting Ukraine, heck even Iraq and afghanistan have undertones of finding gas alternatives for Germany. The realist in me agrees, it kind of stinks that America seems a bit selfish. But I might remind you that Germany didn’t really like it when the gas did get shut off. I seem to recall their response was, hey America, do something! In the end, Most of what we have done hasn’t worked and then you have Germans themselves supporting nordstream which essentially undermines the entire strategy altogether. I wouldn’t be surprised if the US cedes Germany and leaves in the next decade. Now... what’s going to hurt the dollar more? A few sanctions now or departure from the European continent altogether? Ps also consider the source - the economist - they’ve never met a sanction or a trade barrier they could like so keep that in mind....

Re: America’s aggressive use of sanctions endangers the dollar’s reign

#66

Post by headcanon »

sschueller wrote: post #2

For 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?

The United States' main geopolitical imperative is to maintain global hegemony. Part of this is ensuring regional powers are either allied (in the case of NATO countries or Saudi Arabia) or contained (in the case of Russia and Iran).

It is a fundamental rule of Geopolitics that every country assert itself to the best of its abilities with the strengths they have. One of Russia's biggest strengths is natural resources. It is advantageous to them to have Western Europe dependent on its oil and natural gas supplies.

George Friedman explains in this book [1] that Russia may attempt to assert itself to a greater extent in the next few decades, possibly going so far as to annex a Baltic country or two. Today this would be inconceivable, but if Russia has the off switch for Germany's economy, NATO's response is drastically weakened.

Whatever scenario may come to pass, European reliance on Russian natural resources disrupts the US's containment strategy which it needs in order to maintain its dominant position in the region. So yes, it will say something if it feels like that is under threat.

Not saying this is a good or bad thing. Depends on your perspective and what country you live in.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Next-100-Years-Forecast-Century/dp/07...

Re: America’s aggressive use of sanctions endangers the dollar’s reign

#67

Post by rayiner »

geggam wrote: post #22
corporate_shi11 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Now you are bumping on the reason I think the founders put the 2nd amendment in the bill of rights. Govts have to be balanced at some point by the will of the people

Of course that’s the reason. Different people use different euphemisms, for the same reason we do now. (“Defend against tyranny.”) But we’re talking about an amendment the founders wrote shortly after they took up arms to overthrow their government. It’s clear what they were talking about: https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/04/second-amendment-hist...

> Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.

That was Noah Webster, dictionary guy. He’s clear that the second amendment embodies a personal right to bear arms (so the citizens aren’t disarmed, like in Europe) so they can overthrow the government.

Re: America’s aggressive use of sanctions endangers the dollar’s reign

#68

Post by mattrp »

FpUser wrote: post #34
ardit33 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

All those countries actually know what it’s like to live behind the iron curtain and don’t really want to do so again. What should happen is the US should move it’s German bases to a country that actually wants them there like Poland but doing so would probably risk a war. Germany might not like America on their soil but they also have to realize the status quo is certainly better than the alternative. This nordstream project just has German cronyism written all over it and I wouldn’t be surprised if the rest of Europe is worse of because A few kleptocrats had to make a buck. They should be sanctioned quite honestly.

Re: America’s aggressive use of sanctions endangers the dollar’s reign

#69

Post by ilaksh »

Ever since I saw Ray Dalio's video about the economy and long term debt cycle I have been really worried.

The thing that scares me more is that we don't hear any politicians talking about this stuff. In particular presidential candidates. The only one that seems to actually understand technology and the economy (Yang) is proposing an increase in entitlements, although hopefully the VAT can improve revenue somewhat. I know he knows who Ray Dalio is since he mentioned his name.

I think there needs to be a plan for an international system that is not dominated by one country like the US dollar and is technologically sophisticated. Some kind of multi-government backed cryptocurrency, possibly paired with a decentralized resource tracking system.

I feel like there are a bunch of people who think there is no problem and a bunch on the other side who think the situation is dire. My guess is that there is a real situation that we have to plan for and it seems like a very bad idea to put off that planning.

Re: America’s aggressive use of sanctions endangers the dollar’s reign

#70

Post by cavisne »

wavefunction wrote: post #8
sschueller wrote: post #2

For 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…

> strangely very friendly to Russia on all other matters

This "friendly" policy is basically not considering what Russia does within its borders justification for military action. This was always the unofficial policy, with the new bit being the Trump administration doesn't pass moral judgement on what Russia does within its borders.

A pipeline between germany and Russia strengthens Russia (increased GDP, increased control over the EU) and weakens the EU (which is full of countries that have proven they cannot defend themselves). Increasing the chance of war with Russia, and creating another mess for the US to clean up.

Seems pretty consistent foreign policy to me.

Post reply on HN