Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no global government so there's no global court. The global/international level is considered anarchy.
Anarchy means no ruler, not no rules.
[deleted]
America’s aggressive use of sanctions endangers the dollar’s reign
171–180 of 326 posts
Re: America’s aggressive use of sanctions endangers the dollar’s reign
#172For 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?
> Why would the United States be the one to decide if Germany is allowed to build a pipeline to Russia or not? Because the US is the sole guarantor of German sovereignty. It's why the US has tens of thousands of troops in germany. It's why US decides if and how much oil/gas Japan or South Korea gets from Russia. It's why the US decides if the Dutch get to sell ASML semiconductor equipment to China. It's why the US di…
> Because the US is the sole guarantor of German sovereignty.
Sole? So the German armed forces are for what exactly?
Re: America’s aggressive use of sanctions endangers the dollar’s reign
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their incentive would be a manufactured one, painting the citizenry as part of some conspiracy/extreme party etc. Just look at how many Republican news outlets continuously portray the other side as extreme and crazy and dangerous. Just having possession of armed weapons makes absolutely no difference to a modern, well equipped American military force. We’re talking about Armored Personal Carriers and Tanks rolling t…
> We’re talking about Armored Personal Carriers and Tanks rolling through cities, all communications being monitored or cut off. Assad literally used tanks against the civil uprising, and wasn’t able to stop it. (And doing so caused part of the army to defect.) Gaddafi was killed by the National Liberation Army, which initially armed itself by capturing tanks and weapons from military stockpiles.
I think Ghaddafi's soldiers defected because he ordered them to shoot up a non-violent protest in Benghazi, killing at least 500 unarmed civillians. That's when the protests turned into an armed insurgency, and Ghaddafi's supporters began leaving to join said insurgency.
Re: America’s aggressive use of sanctions endangers the dollar’s reign
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
New gold is being mined constantly. I never liked the idea of a 100% gold backed currency, but 20% sounds OK. If new money is not printed out of thin air, it seems like prices for things would adjust. Slowly increasing money supply, faster growing productivity/goods/services would mean that prices would go up to keep things balanced. I am not an expert in this subject but it interests me.
Per Wikipedia, there are 187,000 tons of gold above ground, and about 2000 tons are mined a year. That's about 1%. If all the gold was used to support currencies, mining would only let you increase the currency supply by 1% a year. If the economy is growing by more than 1% a year, then the currency has to be deflating. But all the gold isn't being used to support currencies. So here's a different scenario: A currency…
Thanks, I understand your point.
Without a doubt short term, it is good to be able to inflate the currency when there is a 2007/2008 event. But the counter argument is that making many ‘best for the short term decisions’ can cause more damage in the long run. Do we want the best world for our lifetime, or plan for something that is sustainable so our grandchildren’s children will have a great life.
Native American Indians believe that major decisions should be made for what is best for the seventh generation after them.
Re: America’s aggressive use of sanctions endangers the dollar’s reign
#175For 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?
>Image if it was Germany that used sanctions to prevent the US from building a pipeline to Mexico. Would you be ok with that?
On the other hand, imagine that you're Canada and the US decides to build a pipeline to China/North Korea. Would you want Germany to back you up against the US? Because that's what's happening with Nord Stream 2. The US got into the whole thing quite late. Other European countries, such as Poland, Denmark, Estonia and others, were already against the pipeline, but Germany pushed it through anyway. Germany and Russia cooperated on dividing up Europe before.
Re: America’s aggressive use of sanctions endangers the dollar’s reign
#176For 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?
[deleted]
Re: America’s aggressive use of sanctions endangers the dollar’s reign
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> possibly going so far as to annex a Baltic country or two. Today this would be inconceivable Russian doctrine is that the satellite countries are buffers to be used as needed, like Kleenex. It's 100% certain Russia will annex Baltic countries whenever it pleases. To say otherwise just makes you "a useful idiot", as Lenin is credited with saying. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
I wish people wouldn't invoke useful idiot that often. It degrades the message to "everyone with a different point of view is an idiot, who doesn't realise they're being used". That's not a great message on a discussion board and rarely will lead to something constructive. And if you really hold that opinion and can put some irrefutable reasoning behind it... why not do that instead?
Re: America’s aggressive use of sanctions endangers the dollar’s reign
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
No in the first case it might take 1 currency to buy 200 apples. Then in the second case it would take 5 currency to purchase the same 200 apples. 1 gold = 200 apples 1 gold * 1 currency = 200 apples 0.2 gold * 5 = 200 apples
That's what I was saying, but mark_l_watson is saying that in case 1 the price of gold is higher, meaning a smaller amount of gold to buy the same number of apples.
I don’t have Rikard’s book in front of me, but from memory I think he was saying that the price of gold would adjust to $10K/ounce if currency were 20% backed by gold, but the price of gold would have to be much higher than $10K/ounce if currencies were 100% backed by gold.
I don’t invest in gold, I have always thought that income property is the best investment for common people like myself. Rikard has a different opinion and thinks people should own gold in their portfolio (like 5% gold). I don’t understand the gold market, while income property is easier to understand.
Re: America’s aggressive use of sanctions endangers the dollar’s reign
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
> possibly going so far as to annex a Baltic country or two. Today this would be inconceivable Russian doctrine is that the satellite countries are buffers to be used as needed, like Kleenex. It's 100% certain Russia will annex Baltic countries whenever it pleases. To say otherwise just makes you "a useful idiot", as Lenin is credited with saying. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
If Russia annexes any Baltic states it's liable to trigger nuclear war. All the Baltic states are NATO members.
It won't likely trigger a nuclear war. It would trigger a conventional war that would see NATO forces directly confront the Russian military and attempt to push it back out of the Baltics (and try to inflict severe damage if Russia refuses).
Neither side with nukes would be fighting for survival and would not jump to nuclear threats or exchange until or unless their own existing territory was at risk of annexation / loss.
Russia would shift to a nuclear warning posture if pushed back to their borders. If NATO pursued and threatened territory taking, Russia would threaten nuclear response at that point, especially if it was in a particularly weakened condition or believed it couldn't hold its ground.
On the NATO side, there's practically no threat of the US, France or the UK losing territory to Russia in a Baltic-focused conflict (or in Eastern Europe for that matter). To draw a nuclear threat from NATO would similarly require the nuclear powers to be under threat of losing their own territory (and they'd probably have to believe they can't hold their ground). The UK isn't killing ten plus million of its people in a nuclear exchange with Russia for the sake of Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania's territorial integrity as nation-states.
I think the only way that gets nuclear is if Russia plays the crazy card and proclaims that it now regards the annexed Baltic territory as its own and puts up the nuclear warning then and there (move in, take territory, immediately raise the crazy nuclear flag, test the resolve & risk aversion of the other side to respond militarily once the nuclear flag is out of the box). Then NATO has to decide if it believes Russia will actually act crazy.
Re: America’s aggressive use of sanctions endangers the dollar’s reign
#180Whether China's yuan should be freely convertible to other currencies is something the PRC has struggled with for years. A freely convertible yuan would increase China's influence on the world financial system, but it would also increase the influence of the world financial system on China. And it would require much easing, if not elimination, of China's exchange controls. A decade ago, a freely convertible yuan was…
Euros are, literally, a joke.
A currency without an army is nothing.
You can pretend whatever exchange rate you want between the Euro and the USD, but the USD is the real currency.