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

EU bans Belarusian airlines from European skies

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 422 posts

Re: EU bans Belarusian airlines from European skies

#301

Post by newacct583 »

mcky wrote: post #145

Worth noting in all of this that Belarus recently closed their land borders to citizens [1], under the guise of COVID, but in reality to stop people leaving. The only way out was flying from Minsk, which is now even less of an option if there are no flights to the EU. As others have said these sanctions will likely do more to harm the repressed citizens of the regime than Lukashenko [1] https://www.bnt.eu/cs/zpravy/p…

> As others have said these sanctions will likely do more to harm the repressed citizens of the regime than Lukashenko

That's true of all sanctions anywhere. It's not fundamentally possible to target "the government" of a nation without targeting the people it governs.

Re: EU bans Belarusian airlines from European skies

#302

Post by [deleted] »

rklaehn wrote: post #170
andrepd wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hungary is objectively an authoritarian regime because it removed separation of powers, stacked court with political appointees, closed down virtually all independent press, made state TV into a propaganda piece for Fidesz, etc. Not because it "disagrees with the EU".

I fail to see how this is different than other EU countries. E.g. the head of the German constitutional court has been a recent member of parliament for 12 years. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephan_Harbarth How is that not a political appointment? And I have not yet seen any state TV which is not sympathetic to the government bureaucracy. If you are being paid by the state, you are not going to be too critical of…

[deleted]

Re: EU bans Belarusian airlines from European skies

#303

Post by staticautomatic »

refactor_master wrote: post #183
londons_explore wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to see a worldwide agreement that no country will ever stop a citizen from leaving, as long as they have permission to enter another country. Even if the person is in prison or debt, they can always leave with just themselves to another country willing to take them. If all nations agreed to that, we could stop worrying about most other human rights abuses, and country governance becomes more of a free market…

The free market has a pretty terrible track record when it comes to human rights, though. What would countries stand to gain from this, realistically? No country wants economic refugees.

FYI US common law permits asylum claims by economic refugees.

Re: EU bans Belarusian airlines from European skies

#304

Post by EliRivers »

julianlam wrote: post #293
EliRivers wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you might see substantial economic losses as migrants send income back home to support family. Is that a real problem? Assume they get paid in local currency (e.g. US dollars). Option one; they buy a foreign currency with those US dollars, and send that foreign currency overseas. The dollars stay in the US and get spent. Option two, they send those US dollars overseas; those US dollars ultimately either come back to…

A currency exchange is a zero sum transaction. Whether it is US dollars or Philippine pesos makes no difference, the value stayed in-country. When it gets sent overseas, it leaves the country and is spent elsewhere, so that is a loss in value for the originating country. The only value remaining would be whatever fee was charged on its way out.

I disagree.

If the US prints a million dollars, and some does a million dollars' worth of work in the US (or someone outside the US sends over a shipload of electronics in exchange for that big back of dollars) and moves that million dollars overseas, and those dollars never come back to be spent in the US, the US has gained. The US got a whole lot of work done, and did not have to give anyone goods or services in exchange.

The US has been doing this with a trade deficit for decades; giving people paper (or just numbers), which the US can make almost for free, in exchange for actual goods and services which people overseas happily send to the US. A trade deficit is free stuff. It's only a problem if the holder of all that paper comes back some day to spend it.

"When it gets sent overseas, it leaves the country and is spent elsewhere, so that is a loss in value for the originating country."

What value? The US did not give anyone goods or services, no goods from the US were transported to another country. What value was lost to the US? In the future, someone might come back with those dollars and exchange them for goods and services which they move outside the US. That would be a loss of value for the US, watching real goods and services go overseas.

Re: EU bans Belarusian airlines from European skies

#305

Post by BurningFrog »

teekert wrote: post #148
mcky wrote: post #145

Worth noting in all of this that Belarus recently closed their land borders to citizens [1], under the guise of COVID, but in reality to stop people leaving. The only way out was flying from Minsk, which is now even less of an option if there are no flights to the EU. As others have said these sanctions will likely do more to harm the repressed citizens of the regime than Lukashenko [1] https://www.bnt.eu/cs/zpravy/p…

"As others have said these sanctions will likely do more to harm the repressed citizens of the regime than the Lukashenko" I feel that that is true for almost all sanctions everywhere sadly. The Russians love their children too. In fact we have to really think hard on who they benefit, short and long term. Making markets more independent of each other is only making a war more likely. If goods don't cross borders arm…

> In fact we have to really think hard on who they benefit

It will benefit air travellers whose planes will not get hijacked by the Belarus air force.

Re: EU bans Belarusian airlines from European skies

#306

Post by newdude116 »

Hikikomori wrote: post #155
newdude116 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Actually the one sweating should be Russia, because on the long haul (10-20 years), Germany is going to be energy independent due to massive investments (also subsidies) into renewable energy." ROTFL Edit: Yes, please feel free to show your ignorance and lack of basic math skills and downvote this comment. For all others: https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/ I am sure Russia is not scared. Who s…

Interesting and fun read, but don't see how it relates to the near future, and even longer term. Energy demands likely closely follows population growth, which has been trending down for the last 50 years or so. Once it levels out so will energy demands, with some time lag as some countries catches up with standard of living. Unless your argument is that we will be unable to meet our energy demands at that point in t…

Besides, that Germany is extremely bad suited for re-newable energies (little sun, wind at the wrong places, little hydroelectric power):

1. Yes, population growth may stop

2. Your argument with population numbers is totally irrelevant. Economics growth, which is linked to energy consumption, won't stop. If is stops, our society will likely collapse.

https://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/02/21/there-is-no-steady-sta...

In fact, with injecting trillions of dollars in the economy and negative interest rates, we may already have reached the end game. Exactly at the time from predicted by the Club of Rome, I think they predicted trouble for around 2030.

Re: EU bans Belarusian airlines from European skies

#307

Post by Dah00n »

ddddq wrote: post #238
axiosgunnar wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Poland is such an unfree country that the journalist that Belarus arrested had willingly applied for (and received) asylum status in Poland.

I don't get how people still put Poland (and Hungary) on the same level with Belarus or China. Both are democratic nations with just a right wing leadership and political system. And european right wing is more left wing than the Democrats in the US in many social policies. Poland isn't Northkorea or China, despite how the media likes to portray them so. They are way more democratic than the last Trump administration…

Alliance of Democracies Foundation's yearly Democracy Perception Index from 2021[0] had 77% Chinese people seeing their country as having "just the right amount of democracy"[1], which is the exact same percentage as they found in Denmark so it really isn't as simple as that. It also isn't about Right Vs. Left because on a simple left-right axis the US is located further to the right than Saudi Arabia and Hitler[2] and however you see US politics it isn't comparable to Nazism. You need to include more than just left right to get a reasonably useable result.

I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing with your point of view here just saying that when "just the right amount of democracy" can differ so much that #7 on Most democratic countries in the world[3] and #157 on the list agree they have the right amount of democracy then it isn't a surprise that countries that might differ a lot are seen as comparable by some and not others.

0: https://www.allianceofdemocracies.org/initiatives/the-copenh...

1: Alliance of Democracies Foundation is chaired by former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen. This isn't just some cranks rating China based on scared citizens not daring to say otherwise.

2: Obama is pretty close to Hitler on a left-right-only axis but Trump, Bush, etc. are far to the right of Hitler. It is a broken comparison outside of local politics.

3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

Re: EU bans Belarusian airlines from European skies

#308

Post by disabled »

staticman2 wrote: post #291
londons_explore wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to see a worldwide agreement that no country will ever stop a citizen from leaving, as long as they have permission to enter another country. Even if the person is in prison or debt, they can always leave with just themselves to another country willing to take them. If all nations agreed to that, we could stop worrying about most other human rights abuses, and country governance becomes more of a free market…

A country would turn into "religious terrorism refugee land" and people would murder nonbelievers and then immigrate there. Russia would assassinate people and the assassins would have safe travel home. Billionnaires would murder their divorcing spouses then flee to billionnaire refugee land with their money.

> Russia would assassinate people and the assassins would have safe travel home.

They already largely do. Also, in many countries that have experienced illiberal trends recently, they can still get you emigrated abroad and they still have power over you abroad.

As the journalist Sarah Kendzior says “This is a transnational crime syndicate masquerading as a government.”

To win something like this, it is better that large amounts of people who can stay be able to as long as feasibly possible. Once people leave en masse (sometimes there is no choice) the situation only gets uglier. But you do absolutely have to know when to leave.

Re: EU bans Belarusian airlines from European skies

#309

Post by EliRivers »

londons_explore wrote: post #286
EliRivers wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you might see substantial economic losses as migrants send income back home to support family. Is that a real problem? Assume they get paid in local currency (e.g. US dollars). Option one; they buy a foreign currency with those US dollars, and send that foreign currency overseas. The dollars stay in the US and get spent. Option two, they send those US dollars overseas; those US dollars ultimately either come back to…

> If they do, it's just like a non-migrant worker. It isn't quite. Imagine dollars leave the US, get sent to Nigeria, and eventually return to the US to buy some music. Compare that to the case where the dollars do not get sent to Nigeria, but remain in the US. In the latter case, the Nigerian person wanting their music needs to find another source for the dollars to buy their music. That in turn makes the dollar mor…

Imagine dollars leave the US, get sent to Nigeria, and eventually return to the US to buy some music.

I'm definitely on board with the idea that if those dollars never return to the US, then the US effectively got free labour (which is why a trade deficit, I often suggest, isn't automatically a bad thing - it's free stuff, at least until the dollars all come back!), which is quite a win for the US, and given that of all dollars sent overseas, some will never come back, the US has a steady supply of free labour purely because migrant workers are sending dollars overseas (which sure feels like a win for the US).

So the only "downside" for the US is if those dollars sent overseas do eventually make their way back and buy something; at that point the US is handing over goods and services in exchange for that original work done by the migrant worker. Not so much a downside as a delayed fair exchange.

Let me just think out loud for a moment; sending the US dollars to our Nigerian chum, and him returning them to the US in exchange for something, is the same (barring people skiming off the top and postage etc.) as our migrant worker just buying something and posting that to the Nigerian chum. So I think I agree with what you say, but I hypothesise it's not making the US any worse off than the money not making that round trip and just being spent on goods/services in the US by the migrant worker (barring postage etc).

NOT sending the US dollars to our Nigerian chum, and him needing to source US dollars from somewhere else, does make the US dollar a tiny bit more valuable as there is a tiny increased demand for it. Whether that's a good or bad thing for the US, I couldn't say, but if the US dollar becomes too expensive, US exports go down. At this point I guess we're heading into second-order effects of what happens when US exports become too expensive, and I wouldn't like to run into that right now.

Re: EU bans Belarusian airlines from European skies

#310

Post by srg0 »

kofejnik wrote: post #13
allendoerfer wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EU planes can still fly there and back to the EU.

>> At a meeting in Brussels, the leaders of the 27 member states also told EU airlines not to fly over Belarus, and promised further economic sanctions.

not to fly over Belarus != not to fly to Belarus
Post reply on HN