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

241–250 of 326 posts

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

#241

Post by lispm »

bloodm wrote: post #239
lispm wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and the contract says nothing about what you claim. PS. : the spending goal is in the future: 2025. It‘s also a political goal, not a contract. And the current data can be seen here: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2019_... Look at the numbers, they are vastly different from what you claim.

"Look at the numbers, they are vastly different from what you claim. " They are "vastly different" because most countries don't share their fair burden. Trump may be wrong in many things, here he is right. In the PDF you provided "NATO guideline 2%" But hey, why spent it on the military? Let the US spent/fight for us.

Well, you claim that there is a contract which binds NATO countries to spend 2% of their budget on military and that only Germany is not spending 2%.

Everything of that is wrong, There is no contract. The goal of 2% is set for 2025, not now. Currently a bunch of countries spend less than 2%.

And: large parts of the US military spending is completely unrelated to NATO.

Next you need to ask yourself if these approximate numbers make sense:

Europe minus Russia, without the US: defense spending of 350 billion USD. NATO has defense spending of 950 billion dollar. Russia: defense spending: 65 billion USD.

Europe is already outspending Russia five times. NATO is outspending Russia by 15 times.

This looks like lack of money is not the actual problem NATO has.

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

#242

Post by logicchains »

jayd16 wrote: post #214
logicchains wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anarchy means no ruler, not no rules.

The concept is about the lack of a governing body that can enforce "rules". By definition "rules" (as in laws) cannot exist without a ruler (as in one who can enforce laws).

Someone who enforces rules doesn't need to be a ruler; two parties could agree on mutually acceptable rules with a designated external enforcer/arbiter. This is actually how Israel was ruled in time of the Book of Judges (although the unfortunate story there is it didn't work out so they ended up with a king). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kritarchy

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

#243

Post by anticodon »

austinjp wrote: post #232
redis_mlc wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> A currency without an army is nothing. Can you expand on this? What's the financial function of an army? What's the military function of a currency? I can imagine what you might say but I'd like to read it to know for sure.

So far US invaded or staged a coup in every country that had audacity to refuse using US dollar. That is one of the most important functions of US military power.

Also, countries with US military bases aren't really sovereign. They can't for example refuse to invest significant portion of their GDP in US treasuries.

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

#244

Post by anticodon »

linkregister wrote: post #94
baybal2 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"United States have no geopolitical strategy, but a lot of self proclaimed geopolitical strategists." I once have heard this position from US ambassador in Kazakhstan on a private reception event. The guy told people he expected a visit to a *stan country to be like a visit to a warzone. He was learning martial arts, hostage negotiation, and been mentored by multiple self proclaimed experts on "warlord politics" of t…

> Ex-USSR fiefdoms, Russia included, are ran by very simple people, without any geopolitical ambitions. The people of Georgia, Crimea, and the rest of Ukraine would beg to differ.

Actually, people of Crimea are happy to be part of the US. But I guess you will never learn this from Western mass media.

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

#245

Post by anticodon »

headcanon wrote: post #66
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…

There's also an economic reason: if not for Russian gas, Germany will have to buy several times more expensive US gas. One more way to rule Germany (another is military bases).

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

#246

Post by anticodon »

baybal2 wrote: post #109
linkregister wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ex-USSR fiefdoms, Russia included, are ran by very simple people, without any geopolitical ambitions. The people of Georgia, Crimea, and the rest of Ukraine would beg to differ.

How to say... Russians invasions are acts of war, squarely and simple, but they do so without any tinfoil "geopolitical conspiracy" in mind. There is no bigger "grand plan" to them than to an 8th century Viking raid: more subjects, loot, and territories to use to stage further invasions. Danes cared more for how tasty the British were, before they started to care about the British throne and court politics in the big…

LOL, please, show any country looted by Russia. Even during Soviet times most of Russia GDP was spent to raise quality of life in republics, especially Baltic republics.

And now Russia spend enormous amount of money to develop Crimea. Where's the looting?

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

#247

Post by lispm »

hopia wrote: post #236
hopia wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the Russian view we need to listen to?

Russia does not get to dictate which organizations free nations join or do not join.

So basically how the US acts? See middle east, south&middle america...

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

#248

Post by hopia »

hopia wrote: post #236
hopia wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the Russian view we need to listen to?

Russia does not get to dictate which organizations free nations join or do not join.

Unfortunately, I don't get what you mean. Which organizations is the US barring these countries from entering? Is your solution to them the same that they should listen to the US views as well?

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

#249

Post by pnako »

pm90 wrote: post #142
zozbot234 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...the National Guard would just steamroll right on through them... Even assuming that they could do this (which is plausibly quite wrong, as defense tactics can be very effective), what's the incentive? The people who serve in the National Guard are citizens themselves (who have sworn to uphold the Constitution) and every bit of effective defense makes it that much easier for them to defect while keeping plausible…

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…

Look at what happened in Afghanistan. A bunch of Toyota pickup trucks and AK-47s collected on the cold bodies of soviet soldiers is all it took for mujahideens to win the war, despite 20 years of war and trillions of dollars spent.

The main difference in the US would be that militias are even better equipped and better trained. Your tanks and APCs are completely irrelevant; they're useful to capture land, but by definition the US government has no land to capture in the US.

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

#250

Post by hogFeast »

thawaway1837 wrote: post #135
hogFeast wrote: post #13

As a point of fact, it isn't true that the dominant currency imposing costs is new...that has always happened. Britain did it in order to secure continued use of the £, and the US has done it before now. It is a normal extension of foreign policy (because finance is not separate from politics, as the Rusal example shows). It isn't some kind of authoritarian aberration either. The point is that the US has most to lose…

I’m not sure I get your argument. It doesn’t appear the Economist article is claiming that the dominant currency has only just started imposing costs. Their claim is that the recent increased costs, and more relevantly their almost arbitrary nature, hasn’t just led to the usual suspects grousing, but has also started causing allies who didn’t grouse in the past, to actively seek and build alternatives. As a result, t…

Yes, the main contention of the article is that this is unusual. If you think it through: the only way this article makes sense is if that claim is made...otherwise, the US was doing this in the past and it made no difference (which is true).

I think you are taking a slightly expansive definition of ally. You are referring to the EU? A significant grouping within the EU does not regard the US as an ally (particularly economically, ref France bringing down Bretton Woods...the US is the giving tree here, the more you give, the more the EU takes)...and all of the people grousing are the usual suspects (China, Juncker, etc.).

And no, you need to justify an extraordinary claim with extraordinary evidence. None of this is even remotely extraordinary (and counter to the fairly obvious evidence of the dollar's position growing...not receding).

Post reply on HN