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

Turkey's Financial Crisis

adamtooze.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 207 posts

Re: Turkey's Financial Crisis

#71

Post by wheelerof4te »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #68
wheelerof4te wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, he is acting like a leader who puts his country first? How is that bad? If US doesn't want to sell weapons to Turkey, its NATO ally, is Turkey supposed to give up and stay defenceless against terrorists that attack its borders?

> If US doesn't want to sell weaoons to Turkey America is happy to sell to Turkey. Turkey wants to dual source. The U.S., reasonably, doesn’t want its latest stealth tech painted by Russian radars phoning home. Sometimes playing the middle ground helps. Sometimes it gets you a raw deal. In Turkey’s case, the people are losing.

US refused to sell Patriot missile system to Turkey. It also refused to sell it's F-35 fighter jets before Turkey formally requested to buy S-400 anti-air missile system.

US knows that it cannot keep Turkey on a leash like it can, for example, France or Greece. So it does not want to sell it weapons, in case Turkey ever becomes a "problem" (read too powerful to control).

Re: Turkey's Financial Crisis

#72

Post by eynsham »

1cvmask wrote: post #17
hereforphone wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One big concern is that Erdoğan will likely hold on to power however he can. He's already circumvented the constitution (and changed electoral law). I believe he will fight to maintain his reign if necessary. He has about 50% of the country behind him, and as far as I can tell the allegiance is based on religious principles, which makes it a strong allegiance indeed.

Donald Trump only won 46.1% of the vote in 2016 and that was enough. In fact no one got over 50%. Hillary Clinton had a plurality with 48.2% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidentia... In England David Cameron had a parliamentary majority with only 38% of the vote.

In England in 2015, Cameron had 40.9% apparently (https://www.statista.com/statistics/717022/general-elections...). The point still stands—he had far more than 40.9% of English seats!

On the other hand, the Turkish electoral system can fail even more bizarrely than a simple single-member constituency FPTP system—in 2002, only the CHP and AKP cleared the 10% threshold, so the AKP had ⅔ of the votes.

However, at the moment, the president is directly elected, so anything <50% wouldn’t suffice. (How those votes are obtained, of course, is another matter.)

Re: Turkey's Financial Crisis

#73

Post by mghfreud »

costac wrote: post #54
mghfreud wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Borrowing cost for both companies and individuals increased substantially this week. Yes, it is true.

Borrowing costs increased independently of the new savings product. They were rising well before it was announced and increased further because the market priced in a higher level of inflation following the sharp depreciation. The higher rate on deposits that the new saving scheme offers doesn't increase funding costs for banks in anyway. The Treasury literally pays the depositors the extra yield, not the banks.

Does it matter if it is direct result or second order?

BTW, this week, the interest on private loans increased substantially, not gradually.

Re: Turkey's Financial Crisis

#74

Post by financetechbro »

DSingularity wrote: post #4

> The one thing that the central bank is not doing is raising interest rates. This is at the heart of the entire crisis. Okay am I missing something here? Europe has negative rates. The US has negative rates. But when Turkey lowers rates from 19% (!!?!!) to 14% it creates a “crisis”?

US does not have negative rates. Every other central bank would raise interest rates with inflation at the levels we’re seeing in turkey. They problem here is that Turkey is doing the opposite

Re: Turkey's Financial Crisis

#75

Post by [deleted] »

baxtr wrote: post #6

Just a question: would it have been a good idea for a Turkish person, say, a year ago, to invest in stable coins to prevent suffering from Lira depreciation? PS: This is a sincere question… EDIT: some are asking why not real Euros or Dollars? I was thinking convenience and availability. I’m not sure if you could just easily get dollars in Turkey.

[deleted]

Re: Turkey's Financial Crisis

#76

Post by sdasdasczxcxzc »

AlexCoventry wrote: post #55
baxtr wrote: post #6

Just a question: would it have been a good idea for a Turkish person, say, a year ago, to invest in stable coins to prevent suffering from Lira depreciation? PS: This is a sincere question… EDIT: some are asking why not real Euros or Dollars? I was thinking convenience and availability. I’m not sure if you could just easily get dollars in Turkey.

Why not straight-up crypto? Ethereum is up 647% from a year ago.

Crypto is especially known for stability.

Re: Turkey's Financial Crisis

#77

Post by JumpCrisscross »

wheelerof4te wrote: post #71
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If US doesn't want to sell weaoons to Turkey America is happy to sell to Turkey. Turkey wants to dual source. The U.S., reasonably, doesn’t want its latest stealth tech painted by Russian radars phoning home. Sometimes playing the middle ground helps. Sometimes it gets you a raw deal. In Turkey’s case, the people are losing.

US refused to sell Patriot missile system to Turkey. It also refused to sell it's F-35 fighter jets before Turkey formally requested to buy S-400 anti-air missile system. US knows that it cannot keep Turkey on a leash like it can, for example, France or Greece. So it does not want to sell it weapons, in case Turkey ever becomes a "problem" (read too powerful to control).

> in case Turkey ever becomes a "problem" (read too powerful to control)

Is this honestly the line Turks are being fed? The concern is Turkey becoming a failed state and terrorist hotbed, for the U.S. and Russia, and a new migrant source, for the EU. If Turkey could reliably project force in the region, it would solve a lot of American strategic problems.

Re: Turkey's Financial Crisis

#79

Post by lostlogin »

objektif wrote: post #62
SuoDuanDao wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Syrian conflict, though deliberately obfuscated, was probably primarily a conflict between Russia-backed Iran and US-backed Saudi Arabia. Wahabism is an arm of the latter.

Well you conveniently skipped another very important country in the region.

For those of us interested but less informed - could you name the country directly?
Post reply on HN