141–150 of 496 posts
Russian citizens like me will be hit hardest, as usual. Large institutions and wealthy individuals will find another ways to transfer money. Costs of goods and services will rise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It can't be just a number on a computer in a bank, right? It really is, but to answer your second question, it's important to consider *which* bank. There's reserves (i.e. balances of banks at the Federal Reserve) and bank deposits (which really are just numbers in banks' databases). Having an account at the former is effectively what makes numbers in the database of the latter "real USD". > Otherwise some Russian…
I suppose what OP was arguing is, when bank A transfers to bank B, does bank B check with the Feds that the money from bank A is "real"? And is a transfer from A to B really a transfer from A's account at the Feds to B's? In that case, why would the US have to act "indirectly", threatening bank A not to work with bank B? They could simply deny any transfers to and from bank B's account at the Feds, which would make a…
Yes, unless the banks have mutual accounts with each other that they can use to settle instead. So, if bank B is accepting to be owed money by bank A for any transfer from A to B, they don't need to settle – but there's practical limits to that, imposed by both risk and regulatory concerns. Eventually, they'll need to settle up if funds flows A -> B and B -> A don't largely cancel each other out.
> And is a transfer from A to B really a transfer from A's account at the Feds to B's?
For wire transfers and ACH, it is.
> They could simply deny any transfers to and from bank B's account at the Feds, which would make any transactions impossible?
Yes – that's in fact exactly what a freeze of that bank's Fed reserves is!
quite a few commenters have pointed out SWIFT as a hand of soft power and i think its important to understand the twitter post doesnt mention an important fact: SWIFT was created in order that Europe may resist Kissingers increasingly capricious hand of soft power as it emerged as a lead sap in an increasingly arbitrary US foreign policy. 40 years ago the US had become effectively drunk on soft-power moves against st…
In this case, though, one wants to apply pressure not on the country, but on the surrounding oligarchs. When a nation is, essentially, a syndicate of organized criminal oligarchs around a strongman, financial pressure on those people is exactly what you need.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The EU would only go along with this because the US has them by the proverbial balls. European militaries are a joke and there is no domestic political support for building them up.
The EU collectively outclasses every likely regional aggressor or likely regional coalition, and can project power better than any but a handful of other states (most of which are unproven against that challenge). Throw in Britain and only the US—which is in a mutual defense pact with several EU states—is clearly ahead of them. How's that "a joke"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The EU would only go along with this because the US has them by the proverbial balls. European militaries are a joke and there is no domestic political support for building them up.
A reminder that two of Western Europe's militaries are nuclear, which hardly makes them "a joke". You seem to be projecting the state of Germany's military to all European forces, which is... questionable.
Russian citizens like me will be hit hardest, as usual. Large institutions and wealthy individuals will find another ways to transfer money. Costs of goods and services will rise.
I'm sorry that this is the case, but, I'm pretty sure that's the idea. At this point, your government is not acting with anyone's best interest in mind, including that of its citizens. It's up to the rest of the world to make it clear what the consequences are for that, in the hopes that if your leaders don't change their mind on their own, you'll do it for them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Him thinking that, however qualified he is, does not mean he's right. Being the CEO of a hedge fund, with a personal grudge against Russia, does not make you infallible. The US benefits enormously from owning the reserve currency and running the world financial system, and the ultimate effect of our trigger-happy approach to sanctions is to push countries away from those, especially with the US becoming a smaller per…
As opposed to random commenters on HN who are likely SWE and not experts in finance or geopolitics? I hate this trend of "well he's an expert so he might be wrong". Okay, sure, we are all human and make mistakes, but, he's also an expert and you don't become an expert by being wrong all the time. Not sure how many people here are qualified to comment on these events instead of him.
Trotting out an expert who you agree with, to end discussion, is just as bad. You can find reasonable experts on all sides of issues. It's almost always used as a rhetorical technique to shut down debate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sorry that this is the case, but, I'm pretty sure that's the idea. At this point, your government is not acting with anyone's best interest in mind, including that of its citizens. It's up to the rest of the world to make it clear what the consequences are for that, in the hopes that if your leaders don't change their mind on their own, you'll do it for them.
That's the propaganda used to justify sanctions, but historically, no government has been overthrown due to sanctions. The sanctioned country can just use the sanction as an example of hegemony, which isn't exactly inaccurate. What sanctions do accomplish is that they give you an avenue for more aggressive intervention. An example of this is America's sanctions against Imperial Japan before WWII.
Since the idea is to get governments to change their behavior and being overthrown is just one of the extreme tail risks that play in to motivating that behavioral change, that's neither surprising nor inconsistent with sanctions working.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Him thinking that, however qualified he is, does not mean he's right. Being the CEO of a hedge fund, with a personal grudge against Russia, does not make you infallible. The US benefits enormously from owning the reserve currency and running the world financial system, and the ultimate effect of our trigger-happy approach to sanctions is to push countries away from those, especially with the US becoming a smaller per…
> The US benefits enormously from owning the reserve currency and running the world financial system, and the ultimate effect of our trigger-happy approach to sanctions is to push countries away from those That seems belied by actual history. The US has been a "trigger happy" sanctioner for basically the entirety of the post-war era, and the dollar has been dominant throughout. What would change now that didn't when…
quite a few commenters have pointed out SWIFT as a hand of soft power and i think its important to understand the twitter post doesnt mention an important fact: SWIFT was created in order that Europe may resist Kissingers increasingly capricious hand of soft power as it emerged as a lead sap in an increasingly arbitrary US foreign policy. 40 years ago the US had become effectively drunk on soft-power moves against st…