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

'Is monetary policy even working?'

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 67 posts

Re: 'Is monetary policy even working?'

#51

Post by Temporary_31337 »

bequanna wrote: post #35
alephnerd wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current argument against US Aid to Ukraine is over the current foreign aid package of $5B, which has turned into a culture war issue. I never heard similar arguments in 2016, 2019, or 2021.

The total amount that we’ve already gifted Ukraine is absolutely relevant when we discuss sending even more. Since we are running historic Federal deficits, every dollar we agree to send them comes at the expense of decreasing the purchasing power of Americans. Government spending at these levels contributes to inflation and makes Americans worse off. Enough is enough.

If the war escalates to Europe US companies will have nowhere to send their iPhones and Teslas to.

Re: 'Is monetary policy even working?'

#52

Post by alephnerd »

bequanna wrote: post #44
bryanlarsen wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We didn't send $75B to Ukraine. Sending an almost expired 155mm artillery shell is counted as sending $8000 to Ukraine, but in reality we're saving ourselves the cost of destroying the shell once it expires. Yes, we'll have to spend $8000 to replace the shell, but we would have to replace it anyways since it has a limited shelf life.

Do you have some hard numbers to back this up? What percentage of that aid is just things we were going to “throw away”? I’d be willing to bet 5% or less of total aid falls in the category you mention.

The source that you yourself provided gives that breakdown.

At most 37% of all aid was no strings attached cash.

Everything else was either Military Gear, Training from American professionals, or Loans to purchase weapons systems.

Re: 'Is monetary policy even working?'

#53

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

smallmancontrov wrote: post #23
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know.. if I could only get a small fraction of that $5b instead of contributing to it being send to everyone but me, I would be a happier man. edit: I will make a less convoluted statement. Ideally, the amount of that small 5b donation abroad would be zero.

Can you deliver a credible reduction in the amount of future money we will have to spend to contain Putin's territorial ambitions? No? In that case I think the $5b is best spent in Ukraine.

Hmm, not exactly. I can, however, absolutely guarantee that if we do keep the printing press open for geopolitical projects of various kinds, there will be too many dollars of no value in the future. It is a fate America might want to avoid.

Because I assume you know full well that is is not actually 5b. The amount is much greater[1].

Now, we can talk about priorities, which is fair.

If you were in charge, what aid is fair game for scrapping?

Because US will not be able to support it forever.

[1]https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine...

Re: 'Is monetary policy even working?'

#54

Post by dctoedt »

alienicecream wrote: post #50
dctoedt wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is nothing more than "containment" policy, an attempt to restrict another power's freedom of action, which only works as long as they're weak enough to be imposed on. Containment worked with the Soviet Union — it can work again with Putin's Russia.

It can work, or it might not, in which case you or your children will be dying for some town in Eastern Ukraine you've never heard of and you can't pronounce.

> [Containment] can work, or it might not

Well then if it might not work, I suppose we should just let Tsar Vladimir — abetted by his kleptocratic henchmen and his millions of state-media-deluded followers — do whatever TF seems good to His Imperial Majesty. Because heaven forbid we should take any risks to try to preserve a rules-based world order.

Re: 'Is monetary policy even working?'

#55

Post by nradov »

alienicecream wrote: post #48
nradov wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We literally still have Russian nuclear weapons pointed at us. That seems like a serious threat. Containment as a policy worked well enough during the Cold War as the least bad alternative. There's no reason to stop it and allow Russia to reconquer Eastern Europe, which they absolutely would do absent a strong containment policy. The historical record shows that isolationism and appeasement never works in the long ru…

How the heck is putting Ukraine or Georgia in NATO going to protect us from Russia's nucleus weapons?? If anything it will make the threat more immediate. > The Ukrainians are still willing to fight for their own soil so your point is illogical and irrelevant. This thread is about bringing Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, which means we would be obligated to fight on the ground to defend those countries. I don't know w…

I read it, but you apparently don't understand what's actually happening. While NATO had some preliminary discussions with Ukraine they are not actively moving through the accession process. Every major NATO leader has been clear that the territorial dispute with Russia will have to be settled one way or another before Ukraine can officially join. So, you're being ignorant or disingenuous by bringing up an obligation to fight in the ground in Ukraine.

As for Georgia, they are a sovereign state and can make their own decisions. If they want to join and meet the criteria then let them join. How is Georgia any different from Finland in that regard?

A policy of aggressive containment keeps us safer by wasting Russian resources. When we surround them with hostile powers they have to spend more on defending their homeland and have less for building nuclear weapons or launching invasions. Keep them poor.

And anyway you haven't even proposed a viable alternative. There's no point in negotiating with Putin: he doesn't negotiate in good faith. Even if we gave him huge concessions now he would just come back and demand more in a few years. Nor are we in a position to be able to offer the type of concessions that Russia seems to want. Ukrainian territory and Georgian sovereign freedom of action aren't ours to give away. The citizens of those countries will have to decide for themselves.

Re: 'Is monetary policy even working?'

#56

Post by smallmancontrov »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #53
smallmancontrov wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you deliver a credible reduction in the amount of future money we will have to spend to contain Putin's territorial ambitions? No? In that case I think the $5b is best spent in Ukraine.

Hmm, not exactly. I can, however, absolutely guarantee that if we do keep the printing press open for geopolitical projects of various kinds, there will be too many dollars of no value in the future. It is a fate America might want to avoid. Because I assume you know full well that is is not actually 5b. The amount is much greater[1]. Now, we can talk about priorities, which is fair. If you were in charge, what aid i…

> not exactly

So you're advocating for fiscal irresponsibility while complaining about it at the same time. How very typical.

> too many dollars of no value in the future

Oh no, not a currency devaluation! You know that not only do many countries intentionally seek to devalue their currency, but there are regular fights in the UN about it. "(Other country) promised to not devalue their currency but did it anyway and now I am upset" is probably one of the top 3 recurring mini-dramas. These generally launch into political grandstanding without covering the macroeconomic basics of why a country might want to devalue their currency because it is such a common occurrence that everyone present is expected to know, and they generally do know, as do I. The way that you bring it up as if it is an unspeakable horror makes me suspect you do not. You might want to fix that.

It's possible that you actually do occupy the parts of the American economy that would be hurt by a currency devaluation, in which case fine, everyone is entitled to their own self-serving opinions, just don't expect me to share them. However, I don't think that's the case -- those parts of the economy generally understand the macro 101 at play. It's a pet peeve of mine when someone who works in an economic sector that would benefit from a currency devaluation recoils from the prospect in horror because all they understand is what they heard on TV and the general principle of "line go down, bad." In any case, my point is: don't threaten me with a good time.

There are negative consequences for fiscal irresponsibility, but that's not the one that keeps me up at night.

Re: 'Is monetary policy even working?'

#57

Post by dragonwriter »

alienicecream wrote: post #45
dragonwriter wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would Ukraine and Georgia belong in NATO for any reason other than to piss off the Russians? For mutual defense against outside aggressors and to coordinate regional security efforts, same as every other NATO member. The fact that the Russians were clearly in 2008 (and have demonstrated that even more clearly since) the most likely and dangerous outside aggressors facing Georgia and Ukraine doesn't mean the pur…

Yeah, thanks for the boilerplate. Exactly what mutual defense of the United States or Western Europe is Ukraine or Georgia going to provide? Western Europe and the United States is not under any outside threat, let alone one that these countries could meaningfully assist with. This is nothing more than "containment" policy, an attempt to restrict another power's freedom of action, which only works as long as they're…

> Exactly what mutual defense of the United States or Western Europe is Ukraine or Georgia going to provide?

(1) Other NATO members aren't only in Western Europe. Ukraine borders several NATO members and its Black Sea location positions it to provide support to even more. And it pretty clearly has a lot to offer its neighbors when it comes to mutual defense.

(2) NATO's single deployment under the mutual defense provision (Article 5) included Georgian and Ukrainian troops, even though they were only non-member partners at the time, and Ukraine has greatly increased its capacity in the intervening period, due to grim necessity imposed by Russia.

Re: 'Is monetary policy even working?'

#58

Post by dragonwriter »

alienicecream wrote: post #50
dctoedt wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is nothing more than "containment" policy, an attempt to restrict another power's freedom of action, which only works as long as they're weak enough to be imposed on. Containment worked with the Soviet Union — it can work again with Putin's Russia.

It can work, or it might not, in which case you or your children will be dying for some town in Eastern Ukraine you've never heard of and you can't pronounce.

Yeah, and the one lesson we should certainly take from the past is that taking a pass on containment to appease powerful, aggressive states never leads to those doing so (including, but limited to, Americans) paying a very high, avoidable price in blood and treasure overseas as a consequence when not trying to contain aggression surprisingly does not contain the aggression.

Re: 'Is monetary policy even working?'

#59

Post by alienicecream »

nradov wrote: post #55
alienicecream wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How the heck is putting Ukraine or Georgia in NATO going to protect us from Russia's nucleus weapons?? If anything it will make the threat more immediate. > The Ukrainians are still willing to fight for their own soil so your point is illogical and irrelevant. This thread is about bringing Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, which means we would be obligated to fight on the ground to defend those countries. I don't know w…

I read it, but you apparently don't understand what's actually happening. While NATO had some preliminary discussions with Ukraine they are not actively moving through the accession process. Every major NATO leader has been clear that the territorial dispute with Russia will have to be settled one way or another before Ukraine can officially join. So, you're being ignorant or disingenuous by bringing up an obligation…

> How is Georgia any different from Finland in that regard?

Basically there's isn't a difference, Finland shouldn't be in NATO either. Americans have no business defending Finland of all places. Georgia is even less of a concern, it might as well be on the moon for all the national interest we have in Georgia.

> When we surround them with hostile powers they have to spend more on defending their homeland and have less for building nuclear weapons or launching invasions.

Right, the cornered dog theory. Maybe he'll bark himself to sleep before he bites you.

> And anyway you haven't even proposed a viable alternative.

The alternative is that countries negotiate with regional powers and try to maintain friendly relations. The US is not world policeman and we can't afford to play one on TV, because it invites situations like the Ukrainian one.

Re: 'Is monetary policy even working?'

#60

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

smallmancontrov wrote: post #56
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, not exactly. I can, however, absolutely guarantee that if we do keep the printing press open for geopolitical projects of various kinds, there will be too many dollars of no value in the future. It is a fate America might want to avoid. Because I assume you know full well that is is not actually 5b. The amount is much greater[1]. Now, we can talk about priorities, which is fair. If you were in charge, what aid i…

> not exactly So you're advocating for fiscal irresponsibility while complaining about it at the same time. How very typical. > too many dollars of no value in the future Oh no, not a currency devaluation! You know that not only do many countries intentionally seek to devalue their currency, but there are regular fights in the UN about it. "(Other country) promised to not devalue their currency but did it anyway and…

Hmm, no. I am advocating for acting in US interest. I am not sure US in currently in a position to throw money around on feel good projects around the world.

No need to make a snide remark.

Sure, when it is to their direct strategic ( and not tactical ) advantage? Pray tell me what advantage would US gain here? Oh wait, is that your argument and the US masterplan ( the reference to: "(Other country) promised to not devalue their currency but did it anyway and now I am upset")?

To make the dollar so worthless that the debt it owes is worth even less? Do you think US can survive that?

Will that be a good time?

What does then? I am not going to lie. You got me curious.

Post reply on HN