Possibly, but you've still not countered the objection that they would never invade without any excuse (note 'excuse' not 'reason'). Every single invasion Russia has ever carried out in its modern incarnation has been for 'supporting separatists autonomy', or 'repelling NATO', or 'supporting legitimate governments against foreign intervention',... and so on. Never, not once, has it been "because we wanted that land". — Isaac

Really?

HOW ABOUT CRIMEA?

Anyway, I think you should put the trust in Stalinist rhetoric to a level where it belongs. After all, in Soviet (Russian) history Finland attacked Soviet Union in 1939 and the Soviet Union attempted to liberate the Finnish proletariat, and saw as the legal representative of Finland the Finnish Democratic Republic, which then likely would have joined the Union of Soviet Republics just like Baltic States.

Same rhetoric is continued now.

If they were about to join into a hostile military alliance they certainly would.

How did the United States react to Cuba getting into bed with the USSR? By calling it an existential threat and threatening nuclear war.

That happened over half a century ago, and Cuba is still under sanctions as a result of that. Do you realise that? — Tzeentch

And if during the Cold War there would have been a Marxist revolution in Mexico, yes, extremely likely the US would have intervened. Mexicans themselves understand this quite well.

But there wasn't a leftist revolution in Mexico. Hence you really should give the reason why Mexico would think it would be better off to shed it's neutrality and join in a military alliance with China.

The simple fact is that countries seek military alliance if they feel threatened. The US isn't an existential threat to Mexico. It simply doesn't have ambitions to annex parts of Mexico. (You could argue it was in the 19th Century, but then it was attacking it's northern neighbor too...and got it's ass kicked.)

Putin's Russia is threatened by NATO.
It's just that the threat is against Putin's expansion (land-grabbing) ambitions.

And that goes to show how the sort of tu quoque type switch of narrative, "NATO is the threat", has been successful.
"Bring up and focus on that, and watch", you might hear Surkov say, with Medinsky nodding in agreement, and Kiselyov implementing for the masses.
"Shut others down", you might hear Putin say.
That was easy. :sparkle:

It became clear enough some time ago that no NATO membership for Ukraine isn't a peace-maker.
And Russian bombs are still bringing ruinage to Ukraine. :fire: — jorndoe

:100: :up:

Mexico attacking doesn't seem very likely either. But how do you think the United States would react if Mexico were to enter, say, a Chinese-led military alliance? — Tzeentch

The famous hypothetical China-Mexico alliance. Well, ask yourself first just why would Mexico want to have Chinese to protect them? The Zimmerman telegraph didn't change their views...even if then US-Mexican relations were a bit problematic. Or their reasons for doing this don't matter here...right???

The Monroe Doctrine tells us how they would react, and this concept has guided United States foreign policy regarding the Americas from the Cold War to the present. Remember Cuba, Venezuela (then and now!), etc.? — Tzeentch

Both, Cuba and Venezuela, haven't been toppled / occupied / annexed. In fact they show clearly the limitations that the US with the most powerful military in the World has. Where the US can trample freely and have it's most bizarre and dubious machinations done are in tiny Central America and the Caribbean countries. Guatemala, Panama, Haiti and so on. Not Mexico, Brazil.

Yet US doesn't treat Mexico as Russia treats Ukraine. It isn't an "artificial" country that basically should be part of the US. After the US got Texas and California, there hasn't been appetite for more Mexican territory. Not at least yet.

International relations are a two way street.

With Mexico and the South American countries, the US cannot be such a bully. Last time it sent troops to Mexico was during the Mexican Civil War. In fact last time it was Mexico that sent troops to the US.

Anyway, the real issue is how a Great Power treats it's neighbors. Hence Luxembourg can be pretty easy with Germany and France now. But not previously. The fact you should be asking is why Ukraine and other former Soviet Republics like the Baltic States wanted to join NATO? And why Sweden and Finland opted to ask for membership in NATO?

The Finnish border is not of the same strategic significance as Ukrainian one.

The former consists of highly irregular terrain through which is it extremely difficult to conduct military operations. The Soviets experienced first-hand how defensible this terrain was in the Winter War of 1939.

The latter consists of open plains and is part of a region also termed the "highway to the East", used by the Germans to invade the Soviet Union in WWII at rapid speed. — Tzeentch

Ukraine itself has huge strategic significance. Just earlier you could read how 'Novorossiya' is portrayed from the Russian viewpoint. And NATO attacking?

Well, if you think of it from the Russian view, the shortest way to strike a) St Petersburg, b) Moscow and c) Northern fleet/Kola peninsula is from here. Both Northern Norway or the Baltics don't have that strategic depth, Sweden+Finland add that depth to the North for NATO. In modern war airspace is crucial too, hence it's no wonder Soviet officials were proposing Soviet air defence installations to be positioned into Finland as late as the 1970's.

What border is this? — Tzeentch

?

The border which increases hugely the border that Russia has against NATO (now only in the north in Norway and around the Kaliningrad oblast with Poland and Lithuania).

The way to keep NATO out is to make incorperation into the Russian Federation a foregone conclusion, and I think that's what these things are aimed at. — Tzeentch

???

Regime change is one thing. Annexing territories another. Last time the US fought a war of conquest was the Spanish-American war.

Talk by whom? The Russians? — Tzeentch

Where do I start? Perhaps from 2014:

Talking about the Ukrainian elections and ethnic Russians in that country's east, Putin took a detour through history.

"I would like to remind you that what was called Novorossiya back in the tsarist days – Kharkov, Lugansk, Donetsk, Kherson, Nikolayev and Odessa – were not part of Ukraine back then," Putin said. "The center of that territory was Novorossiysk, so the region is called Novorossiya. Russia lost these territories for various reasons, but the people remained."

Putin's comment might be taken as it was portrayed – as an aside, or a little tidbit of information – if it weren't for the fact that Novorossiya has been brought up so often in recent days by pro-Russian activists, who have reportedly been chanting the word as they argued against staying with Kiev. Someone has even set up a Web site that appears devoted to bringing the historical region back.

Or from a Russian website, geopolitika.ru:

Former "Ukraine" is from 2014 a dysfunctional pseudo-state run by an illegal and nazi junta in Kiev who take their orders from Washington. It is a scizophrenic "state" where one half of the population is indoctrinated and hates and opresses the other half with the help of the illegal regime and illegal armed terrorist groups like "Pravyj Sector". These groups have also taken over parts of the "ukrainian army" that now has become a tool of opression of the people of Novorossiya and thus has lost all legitimity too. The only way to get out of this mess is to liberate Novorossiya and all lands east of the Dnepr river from the Kiev nazi junta. This would also solve the problem of Transniestria and save that state from Nato occupation. The rest of "Ukraine" is so indoctrinated by lies and infiltrated by nazis that it is not worth the effort to liberate. It should be possible to support the Novorossian regions at least by promise that once they vote for independence, or to join Russia, then their application will be 100% approved and people will be protected from the nazis.

Novorossiya (and eastern Malorossiya) contains the biggest part of industry and natural resources, and of educated people, of former"Ukraine" so it can "pay" for the "cost" for its liberation.

History shows us that what is built on hate and lies and crime and foreign power is rotten and will collapse sooner or later. Former "Ukraine" has become the "brown hole" of Europe - "Banderastan" has no future - the future is Novorossiya! (see Geopolitica.ru)

I think the objective of territorial expansion of Russia in this war is pretty evident. If you read what in Russia is said.

This is not only a demand issue. It’s also largely a supply issue. To minimize the supply-side of this situation is ideologically motivated. — Xtrix

Oh.

So you mean that corporations are secretly refraining of producing what is demanded? Well, they then lose money.

When it comes to explaining inflation, there are also other important factors to consider outside of these policies — like COVID and its effects; climate change and its effects; and geopolitical problems (war). — Xtrix

Can you explain a bit what your meaning here.

Inflation is a monetary phenomenon.

Yes, COVID, wars, etc. do increase the spending of governments, which the take more debt (and basically print money), which then create inflation.

Shortages due to a war is a bit different: Russia's naval blockade has halted Ukraine's shipments of agricultural products to many countries, and these countries have depended on Ukraine, then naturally this means that prices go up because of the shortages. But note that this case isn't inflation: do notice that prices simply going up don't mean inflation.

Inflation is usually defined as:

a general increase in prices and fall in the purchasing value of money.

Shortage on Ukrainian wheat isn't the same as general increase in prices.

That's what i mean by faith, i trust. — punos

Yet they aren't synonyms.

I have faith that my wife loves me. But her love is quite dependent on how I treat her and that I show my love to her. I wouldn't say it's logical that she loves me or I her.

I trust my car to work, if I fuel it and take care of it's upkeep. And if it breaks down, I am sure there is a quite logical reason just why it broke down. I wouldn't say I have faith in my car working. (It's not a clunker, but somewhat new car)

In 1999 NATO first's major expansion took place. In 2004 the second, and minor ones following in 2009, 2017 and 2020. — Tzeentch

And likely will continue also in 2022 with two new members, if Turkey get's to be satisfied.

Yet our 1344 km border with Russia now posed to be a NATO border doesn't seem to be an existential threat, which just shows in my view that NATO expansion was less of an issue than Russia's desire to dominate the territory of it's former empire. The basic underlying fact is that Russia see's the collapse of it's former empire basically as a temporary setback. Putin desperately tries to regain the position that the Soviet Union or Russian Empire had. And this is what is lacking: understanding that the empire is over. The British finally understood after Suez crisis that they weren't the British Empire anymore of the past. The Austrians understood immediately that the Austro-Hungarian empire wouldn't come back. But all the actions of Russia show that Putin's Russia doesn't think so.

That Russian currency is introduced to the occupied areas in Ukraine along with Russian passports and even 20 000 schoolteachers are going to re-trained (see WSJ article) all show what the true objectives are. These show clearly that Russia has far more than just keeping NATO out as it's objective. Of course, this should have been evident to everyone with the annexation of Crimea and all the talk of Novorossiya. After all, the attempts to take back Crimea started as early as in the 1990's.

(Newly renamed "Lenin Square" in Mariupol, Ukraine. Notice the flag.)

, Putin telling the world that NATO's intentions to expand would be considered a threat to Russia at Bucharest. — Isaac

This wasn't the first time. Putin just continued the policy by Yeltsin. The talk of Russia perhaps joining NATO basically ended during the NATO war in Kosovo. I think that was the real braker of Russia-NATO relations. That happened before Putin. So I'm not denying at all NATO enlargement to Ukraine has been a big issue for Russia. NATO enlargement has been their threat number 1. even in their written military doctrine for quite some time. All I'm saying that the objectives why to attack Ukraine go very much farther than that.

I would argue that Russia's stance towards former Soviet Republics is partly similar to France and how it treats it's former African colonies. Yes, they are independent, but just look at where French soldiers are deployed, where France has a lot of say to the internal affairs to the countries. Look at France and Mali and Chad, and then compare to France and Ghana or Nigeria, former British colonies. No interventions, no nothing to these countries. With Ukraine, it genuinely wants parts of it and annexations show the obvious motivation.

A possible French apologist could all the reasons why France has troops in these countries, the war against terrorism, previous Libyan aggression towards Chad and so on. But that wouldn't hide the fact that France is a colonial power that basically didn't leave it's colonies other than those it fought bitter wars with (Algeria and Vietnam).

And so is Russia when it comes to it's near abroad. To think that Russia would leave it's neighbors alone if there wouldn't be NATO is extremely unlikely: it still thinks it has the right to control at least in some way it's former parts of the past empire. It hasn't given up on it's imperial aspirations.

I have faith in logic, and mathematics. — punos

Hmm... but is it really based on faith? You can trust logic and mathematics to bring an answer in the logical system.

There's also Alvin Plantinga an influential American analytic philosopher who works primarily in the fields of philosophy of religion, epistemology, and logic. His arguments have made their way into churches I've seen for many years. — Tom Storm

I think the idea of "If we hadn't God, we should invent God" basically for societal reasons is actually a bit different question.

I think the metaphor "take into heart" or "open your heart" means still the same as when the Bible was written. The difference between brain and heart goes back to those times (or far earlier) I guess.

Thanks for your response.

Of course we cannot answer historical "What If" questions, but I would dare to argue that there is more to this than just opposing NATO. And I would dare to say that Russia would behave as Russia even without NATO.

I would just take the example of Moldova, a country that has no intensions of joining NATO, and the end result there: Russian forces, frozen conflict.

And of course those 'massive hits' started with the intervention that is called the Russo-Georgian war, which actually shows the hypocrisy of the West as the Caucasus has been left as a playground for Russia's interventionist policies. Yet these interventions happened even earlier, even before Putin. So there is a longue duree in these actions.

As Russia has no clear borders, but just open steppe, it has been historically permanently aggressive. I think what Catherine the Great said once puts it in a nutshell:

I have no way to defend my borders but to extend them.

Hmm... proof of God?

I wonder if people have been in a Church listening to a sermon where the priest has talked about really "thinking" about Jesus, using your brain, using logic, using your knowledge and deducting it all and the finding yourself the proof, a proof that simply is, like it or not, and something that has nothing to do with your emotions.

And something that has nothing to do with faith.

:snicker:

Where have I said that NATO is the only reason for Russia's invasion? — Isaac

I think the real difference has been in just what reasons are seen as the most important.

Or let's ask it this way:

What do you think the objectives of Putin's Russia would be towards Ukraine if NATO wouldn't exist?

You're not making a point. — Tzeentch

a) Usually countries don't have nuclear weapons as their neighbors aren't a threat to them.
b) Mearsheimer argued that Russia is such a grave threat to Ukraine, that it genuinely needs a nuclear deterrence.

Two paragraphs - one complaining about people selecting opinions (among many) that are convenient to their narratives. The second literally selecting an opinion (among many) that is convenient to your own narrative. — Isaac

Isaac, I've always said that NATO enlargement has been ONE reason for Russia to attack Ukraine.

My point it hasn't been THE ONLY ONE. That Russia has had, just as Mearsheimer noted earlier, interests in Ukrainian territory irrelevant of it being in NATO or not.

It's you who are having this one sided approach to the issue.

What's your point? And how does it relate to the arguments he's making today? — Tzeentch

How does it relate? You really are asking that?

He thought it was so likely for Russia to attack Ukraine that Ukraine should need it's own nuclear deterrent.

And one should remember what the deficits look like now.

Fiscal and monetary policy are very different things. That has nothing to do with the “big picture.” — Xtrix

You genuinely think that there isn't the link in the central bank money printing and fiscal policies? The biggest holder for US treasury bonds is the Federal Reserve. It owns far more US treasery bonds than foreigners do (the second biggest owner group).

On March 15, 2020, the Fed shifted the objective of QE to supporting the economy. It said that it would buy at least $500 billion in Treasury securities and $200 billion in government-guaranteed mortgage-backed securities over “the coming months.”

Just to show how much is a half trillion dollars to the income to the US government:

To argue that “this time” it was directed towards consumers is just confusing what happened. It’s not true. — Xtrix

@Xtrix, during the Great Recession there wasn't any 1 trillion dollar direct transfer for the consumer. "Cash for clunkers" wasn't at all so big... and neither others. The QE was said to have gone into infrastructure, largely. (Which I doubt).

Another fact stating how bad the war is:

Ukraine’s economy is expected to shrink by an estimated 45.1 percent this year, although the magnitude of the contraction will depend on the duration and intensity of the war. Hit by unprecedented sanctions, Russia’s economy has already plunged into a deep recession with output projected to contract by 11.2 percent in 2022.

See World Bank article

Just to put up into context what a -45% GDP growth, it is similar what the Soviet Union suffered at the first year of Operation Barbarossa in 1941. That every tenth Ukrainian is now a refugee and not participating in the GDP does have an effect. Yet it also shows well that for Ukraine, this war is about survival. Which means that the hardships endured and those willing to be endured are totally on a different level.

And for totalitarian Russia, a -11% GDP growth isn't a problem.

What is now interesting to see is the row between Lithuania and Russia and EU sanctions, that Lithuania is following in the rail shipments to KönigsbKaliningrad.

Russia military transportation isn't blocked (as it's done by another agreement), but timber and steel are sanctioned. This has caused I think the first actual crisis near the Suwalki Corridor. (Apart from the Polish-Belarus staged refugee crisis.)



The harshest words are heard from the Russian Duma, perhaps there members competing in licking the ass of their dear leader.

A draft bill submitted to the Russian State Duma calls for repealing the Decree of the State Council of the USSR “On the Recognition of the Independence of the Republic of Lithuania.”

The draft was submitted by Yevgeny Fyodorov, a member of United Russia, the governing party. In his explanatory note, Fyodorov said the decree recognising Lithuania’s independence is illegal, “since it was adopted by an unconstitutional body and in violation […] of the Constitution of the USSR.”

If you genuinely believe Mearsheimer's point was that Putin never lies and we should trust everything he says, what can I say? Intellectual pursuits are not for you. — Tzeentch

I think Mearsheimer should have been listened far earlier, when he was arguing that Ukraine needs it's nuclear deterrent to prevent Russia attacking it.

Conventional wisdom argues that Ukraine should be forced to give up its nuclear weapons to ensure peace and stability in Europe. This is quite wrong. As soon as Ukraine declared its independence, Washington should have encouraged Kiev to fashion its own secure nuclear deterrent. The dangers of Russian-Ukrainian rivalry bode poorly for peace. If Ukraine is forced to maintain a large conventional army to deter potential Russian expansion, the danger of war is much greater than if it maintains a nuclear capability. U.S. policy should recognize that Ukraine, come what may, will keep its nuclear weapons.

Of course, this view from Mearsheimer isn't now widely referred by some. The simple fact is that things have many reasons... not just one most convenient to oneself.

Yet I think only a fraction of physics is actually experimental lab work. A fraction of physics is about "here's an experiment we did in the lab, please confirm our experiment".

A lot of it is theoretical in every field. And then you do have all the ways how you can use mathematics and statistics to create things that look like actual theorizing, but actually are nonsense.

One crucial aspect of any "Sokal Hoax" or similar hoaxes is to show that with adapting accurate inside jargon and terms of the field, simple nonsense can go through peer review system. Every hoax article has to sound like it would be a genuine article. To use jargon and terms only known to the field can be a way to state the obvious easily, but also an important way to seclude the discussion to "experts". In a way, to create this niche where you can talk about the subject at hand. Hence scientific articles are made to be "scientific", not as easy as possible to understand. And then this can confuse the reviewers.

So as this is a Philosophy forum, you likely know Heidegger's term dasein. And if you talk to philosophers of dasein, they'll understand what you are referring to. But just translating it to English and calling "being there", your argument might be misunderstood. However speaking about "da sein" will confuse the layperson. And sometimes this trick is used so well, that even the reviewer doesn't notice that a trick has been played on him.

Everyone knows it's just a silly game, a game where everybody loses, and still they play it as though clueless! — Agent Smith

There's one thing the old 19th Century name, political economy, tells immediately about economics. And that is that it's very political, not some clinical neutral "social science" as it can be portrayed. Hence politics and political rhetoric is an integral part of it.

This problem as exposed by Sokal2 is probably just peculiar to the subject, whatever that is in postmodernism. I don't think you can pull of such a stunt in the so-called hard sciences (replicating the alleged findings is probably cheaper, faster, and mathematically precise). — Agent Smith

I think you give too much credit to "hard sciences". Everywhere where a lot of people are involved, mediocrity and partly lousy standards can and will prevail.

I think you can pull it off. But naturally only those who know the subject matter would notice the bullshit. When it's not dogs and dogparks (that we have some information and understanding about), but molecular biology or analytical chemistry, we wouldn't notice it.

Why is the GOP clinging so hard with so much nearly religious devotion to such an inept politician as Trump is beyond me. It doesn't make any sense.

Never mind if there is overreaction against him. The fact is that he is an extremely lousy leader.

It's clearly that the party has lost it's way.

Agree. Biden talks more about Ukraine than his own country. — Jackson

Even the idea of this is pretty bad for Biden. There's likely a recession coming and the US vote on their leaders above all on the economic performance of the country.

At least, our modern Hitler failed his Anschluss. That's something to celebrate. — Olivier5

Indeed. (Of course the 2014 annexation of Crimea can be seen as the Anschluss part)

Well, the atmosphere is partly like the US of 1939-1941. Back then the German leader had those who "understood" him and saw the culprits somewhere else. What comes to mind is the anti-interventionist cause very popular back then before Pearl Harbour and the declaration of war by Hitler against the US.

In September 11th 1941 Charles Lindberg gave a speech in Des Moines, basically some weeks before the attack on Pearl Harbour is telling about these views:

It is now two years since this latest European war began. From that day in September, 1939, until the present moment, there has been an over-increasing effort to force the United States into the conflict.

That effort has been carried on by foreign interests, and by a small minority of our own people; but it has been so successful that, today, our country stands on the verge of war.

At this time, as the war is about to enter its third winter, it seems appropriate to review the circumstances that have led us to our present position. Why are we on the verge of war? Was it necessary for us to become so deeply involved? Who is responsible for changing our national policy from one of neutrality and independence to one of entanglement in European affairs?

Personally, I believe there is no better argument against our intervention than a study of the causes and developments of the present war. I have often said that if the true facts and issues were placed before the American people, there would be no danger of our involvement.

Here, I would like to point out to you a fundamental difference between the groups who advocate foreign war, and those who believe in an independent destiny for America.

If you will look back over the record, you will find that those of us who oppose intervention have constantly tried to clarify facts and issues; while the interventionists have tried to hide facts and confuse issues.

We ask you to read what we said last month, last year, and even before the war began. Our record is open and clear, and we are proud of it.

We have not led you on by subterfuge and propaganda. We have not resorted to steps short of anything, in order to take the American people where they did not want to go.

What we said before the elections, we say [illegible] and again, and again today. And we will not tell you tomorrow that it was just campaign oratory. Have you ever heard an interventionist, or a British agent, or a member of the administration in Washington ask you to go back and study a record of what they have said since the war started? Are their self-styled defenders of democracy willing to put the issue of war to a vote of our people? Do you find these crusaders for foreign freedom of speech, or the removal of censorship here in our own country?

The subterfuge and propaganda that exists in our country is obvious on every side. Tonight, I shall try to pierce through a portion of it, to the naked facts which lie beneath.

When this war started in Europe, it was clear that the American people were solidly opposed to entering it. Why shouldn't we be? We had the best defensive position in the world; we had a tradition of independence from Europe; and the one time we did take part in a European war left European problems unsolved, and debts to America unpaid.

National polls showed that when England and France declared war on Germany, in 1939, less than 10 percent of our population favored a similar course for America. But there were various groups of people, here and abroad, whose interests and beliefs necessitated the involvement of the United States in the war. I shall point out some of these groups tonight, and outline their methods of procedure. In doing this, I must speak with the utmost frankness, for in order to counteract their efforts, we must know exactly who they are.

The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration.

Behind these groups, but of lesser importance, are a number of capitalists, Anglophiles, and intellectuals who believe that the future of mankind depends upon the domination of the British empire. Add to these the Communistic groups who were opposed to intervention until a few weeks ago, and I believe I have named the major war agitators in this country.

I am speaking here only of war agitators, not of those sincere but misguided men and women who, confused by misinformation and frightened by propaganda, follow the lead of the war agitators.

As I have said, these war agitators comprise only a small minority of our people; but they control a tremendous influence. Against the determination of the American people to stay out of war, they have marshaled the power of their propaganda, their money, their patronage.

And of course in hindsight, what he tells about the Jewish doesn't look good now at all:

The second major group I mentioned is the Jewish.

It is not difficult to understand why Jewish people desire the overthrow of Nazi Germany. The persecution they suffered in Germany would be sufficient to make bitter enemies of any race.

No person with a sense of the dignity of mankind can condone the persecution of the Jewish race in Germany. But no person of honesty and vision can look on their pro-war policy here today without seeing the dangers involved in such a policy both for us and for them. Instead of agitating for war, the Jewish groups in this country should be opposing it in every possible way for they will be among the first to feel its consequences.

Tolerance is a virtue that depends upon peace and strength. History shows that it cannot survive war and devastations. A few far-sighted Jewish people realize this and stand opposed to intervention. But the majority still do not.

Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government.

I am not attacking either the Jewish or the British people. Both races, I admire. But I am saying that the leaders of both the British and the Jewish races, for reasons which are as understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war.

We cannot blame them for looking out for what they believe to be their own interests, but we also must look out for ours. We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples to lead our country to destruction.

After Hitler declared war against the US, Charles Lindbergh fell to be a persona-non-grata. No matter that he did participate as a fighter pilot in WW2 in the Pacific Theatre, his reputation was quite tarnished.

But the above just shows how difficult it was to be openly against nazism prior and even after the war had started. And how much "opposing nazism" was that bad foreign policy.

What puzzles me is that inflation nullifies the objective of printing more money (you havta pay "more" for the same goods). Why print more money then? — Agent Smith

Because inflation happens well after the money has been printed.

Let's have a simple model.

The government has to pay it's employees and assist it's citizens and companies, but hasn't go at all enough tax income to do this. Doesn't matter, it prints the money. The people who first get this money are the winners, assuming they can spend it immediately or invest it in something that isn't affected by inflation. The new money then starts to circulate in the economy and while there's more money going after same level of products and services, prices rise. Then workers / employees see that their cost of living has gone up and demand more in pay. And if there's a demand for workers, companies have to pay more. This is then publicly scrutinized and declared to be the reason for the inflation and is called wage inflation. But do note that this is NOT the actual first action, it was the government money printing to pay for it's expenses.

Hence it's usually the last persons (workers) who are blamed for inflation, not the government itself.

Sorry, but fiscal policy and monetary policy are very different things. I — Xtrix

Then you simply don't look at the big picture. Because the response to covid was done in tandem. Both by the Government and by the Federal Reserve.

We had fiscal stimulus in 09 as well. Not as much, but between that and QE, the money supply increased. Inflation was predicted — and there was none. — Xtrix

Yet this is easy to explain:

Because of the a) the speculative bubble bursting during the great recession and above all, b) the differetn targets of the stimulus.

One trillion dollars directly to consumers had a huge effect during COVID. It actually made US citizens wealthier while the economy was slowing down thanks to the COVID restrictions. During the Great Recession the target of the QE was financial institutions, not consumers. They got that aid, but did they lent it out? No. And then debt was paid back, people cut their spending:



A housing boom created by a debt (bubble) will have severe effects on the real economy because houses aren't built by robots in China, but contribute to the local economies and employment a lot. And buying a home is one of the largest investments people can do (unlike investing sums in bitcoins). So housing boom and bust has a huge impact on the economy.

The pandemic had a different effect. The restrictions were a government intervention to the economy, which hit hard the service sector. But just for a while. And this was compensated with direct money transfers to the consumer AND huge actions by the Fed (QE was restarted in March 15, 2020, it expanded it's repo operations and set up new lending programs and naturally dramatically lowered it's interest rates).

If you think they make politically motivated decisions — OK. — Xtrix

That's what I was trying to say.

And has nothing to do with fiscal policy decisions. — Xtrix

Making a huge separation between fiscal policy and monetary policy isn't fruitful. Perhaps better would be to talk about economic policy, as both fiscal and monetary policy (central bank) tools are used together. The idea that an administration uses fiscal policy and totally separately the central bank uses monetary policy and these would be thinking of totally different issues is not the case.

The simple fact is that if the economy isn't humming along (meaning there's huge economic expansion and it's basically peak times), the economy is viewed as a crisis and the administration has to do something. And usually also the central bank has it's hands full of things to do.

and FAR less than the US. So is their inflation still due to that fiscal stimulus? — Xtrix

Inflation isn't confined to one country and the US affects very much other countries too. The old saying that when the US sneezes, Europe catches a cold is quite correct.

We had stimulus and QE in ‘09. No inflation. — Xtrix

But do notice the crucial difference of where the stimulus / QE went during the great recession and during the COVID stimulus. Bursting of a speculative bubble is deflationary and the QE went to basically to prop up the banks and the financial sector. With the pandemic response this was done also, but a huge inflow was given directly to the consumer, which did have dramatic effects. When you give to the American consumer one trillion dollars, that is going to be a lot going into the real economy. And that does create inflation.

It would do well to distinguish fiscal and monetary stimulus for the sake of discussion and clarity from here onward. If by stimulus you refer to both, please say so. — Xtrix

Perhaps then referring to economic policy would be better. Or perhaps to clarify this better: economic crisis management. Because things are smaller or larger crisis, from the view of the political leadership.

The majority of inflation is accounted for by COVID and Ukraine supply disruptions. — Xtrix

Right. And how many YEARS you think those disruptions will last? Because usually disruptions (which we saw during the pandemic with toilet paper getting scarce, protective masks etc) aren't permanent, they usually are cleared in six months or so. Yes, Russia and Ukraine do give us raw materials and agricultural products, but these are in the end small compared to the global market.

I would just object to this rhetoric as it's usually the given anti-inflationary rhetoric given to the public. It is partly similar to the rhetoric that foreign entitities etc and lastly, hoarders are to blame for inflation. So in the later stages of high inflation the blame is put on the hoarders and the profiteers. And people can believe this. But what is very important to understand the link to economic policy and government spending. Now, if a recession happens, what do you think happens to government spending?

Oil prices aren’t soaring because people have more money to bid them up, for example. — Xtrix

Yes, well, it wasn't so long time ago when oil prices went negative. But high oil prices are like a hand brake to the economy. Which then will put things back to equilibrium.

Coup attempts are usually tried a second time. The planning is taking place now. — Jackson

But the crucial "strategic surprise" is lost now, fortunately.

The best time is always the first time. A huge majority of people simply won't understand what is happening and will have the "deer in the headlights" moment. They will just think that it cannot be happening, that people have gone insane.

But afterwards once they notice it can be possible, it response is totally different.

Yes, it's an interesting question of how much we can learn from near misses, close calls and events that barely were avoided.

Can wars be avoided? Can revolutions be avoided? — Average

Absolutely!!!

They are avoided all the time.

But what is an avoided war? Peace. What is an avoided revolution? Political stability.

We cannot see counterfactuals or the "what if" alternative history, we just have the decisions and the events that were made and happened. It doesn't make sense for us otherwise: if there's an alternative reality, we don't notice it.

January 6th is a perfect example of this.

What if you would have had someone else than the inept narcissist as Trump, but simply people that would have gone all the way with the autocoup? I think a man like general Flynn would have gone through it and not hesitated and really followed his idea of the army confiscation the election machines. He would know that once you do it, either you get all the power in the World or you get a small jail cell. But Flynn didn't coordinate an autocoup. You just had a mesmerized Trump looking at his TV when his supporters stormed the Capital. Hence no "American Revolution" happened that day.

But hell of a chance to make an autocoup.

Politicians don’t “choose” anything about interest rates. — Xtrix

To believe in the independence of the Fed or the ECB on these matters is a bit naive.

As far as fiscal policy: yea, they passed stimulus bills. Arguing that

stimulus packages etc. […] got the inflation finally going.
— ssu

is simply an assertion. If it were so cut and dry, then Europe shouldn’t be experiencing inflation — according to your own chart. But they are as well. — Xtrix

I'm not following you. Or do you think the EU didn't have it's own stimulus packages?

Europe had it's own stimulus packages, including ECB the PEPP (pandemic emergency purchase programme). They had basically negative real interest rates and didn't anticipate higher inflation. The EU made an 750 billion euro ($857 billion) stimulus package as early as 2020 and then individual countries had their own stimulus packages. EU didn''t choose another path in this case.

It was already in 2021 a widely held assertion that the stimulus packages directly to the consumer would create inflation. Which assertions proved to be correct.

(NY TIMES, Oct 18th 2021) Inflation is likely getting a temporary boost from the $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package that the Biden administration ushered in early this year, new Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco research released on Monday suggested.

So perhaps these things take a little more time.

But do note a discussion from a year ago on the Forum here.

Politicians aren’t choosing anything. Monetary policy is in the hands of the Fed — which has become more and more hawkish in terms of money. Interest rates have already been raised 1.5% this year alone and will likely continue. — Xtrix

Uhhh....yeah. They have.

They've chosen the various stimulus packages etc. which got the inflation finally going.





Now when you give that stimulus to people, the money does go into the economy and does create higher demand, which then creates higher prices.

And hence we finally have high inflation. And hence the need for higher interest rates.

I don't know what this means either. Quantitative tightening is the opposite of easing. That means the Fed is beginning to lower mortgage-backed securities and debt on their balance sheet. That was indeed increasing the money supply. The opposite (QT) will decrease the money supply. — Xtrix

Simply to put it, stopping the easing is already tightening. If you have increased the money supply and then decrease it or stop it altogether, isn't that tightening?

I don't think so. What this will do is burst the bubbles created by the Fed -- stocks, bonds, and real estate. We're seeing that already. — Xtrix

How the markets react to the monetary policy of the Fed is a result of monetary policy. Markets going down is a consequence, not the other way around.

Basically one should understand the interest rate as the price of money. Higher interest rates mean higher price of money, which is like putting on the brakes on the stock market.

Paul Volcker killed the inflation (and inflation expectations) by raising the Fed's fund rate to 20% in June 1981. From that year interest rates have basically gone down (or stayed at level). I think now we are seeing or have seen the bottom and now the cycle is in the upward going phase.

Of course the real issue is political. And I fear that the politicians can and will choose inflation than higher interest rates. And blame everybody else: the war in Ukraine, the pandemic, climate change, foreigners, hoarders... you name it!!!

If a sister is a turncoat it doesn't follow that she ceases to be a sister. — Apollodorus

And just when in your thinking the Ukrainians become these turncoats who ceased to be sisters and deserved the "special military operation"?

The idea that supply would follow demand only follows up to the point there aren't any physical limits we run into to increase supply. — ChatteringMonkey

That's why you have the price mechanism. If something becomes unobtainable, it's price goes extremely high. That creates incentives to replace the "something" with another thing. Hence high oil prices are the best thing that can happen to alternative energy resources.

And the last mechanism is simply an economic downturn. If you don't have it, well, there isn't then a market for it. People just have to go without it.

And btw to everybody, has anybody seen anything anymore from the MMT crowd? :snicker:

I think you have in the options many important issues as options lacking in the OP.

The inflation is the direct result of a long inflationary monetary policy, the low and negative interest rates and all the stimulus programs. Basically everywhere. And what broke the dam was the direct stimulus to the consumer during the pandemic. That simply went to prices as supporting banks and corporations didn't because of the bursting of the speculative bubble. Or to put it short, what said (and you acknowledged, which should be noted here).

And the way to handle this, would be higher interest rates. The Paul Volcker response.

Higher interest rates isn't quantitative tightening, Quantitative easing was double talk for money printing.

The real question is that are people aware of this? Do they understand how inflation works? It's been a long time, 40 years, that the nation (meaning the US) has been on a high inflation environment.



I think the good thing is that the US has democrats in charge. They likely are more responsible than republicans would be. But I'm not sure just how high the inflation will go before it's taken out by high interest rates paid on bank accounts.

The US Fed is now between a rock and a hard place.

You're becoming delusional again. Ukraine isn't "my sister" anymore than it is yours! :rofl: — Apollodorus

But then you immediately continue...

Russians do indeed see Ukraine as a sister nation, but one who has joined the West against Russia. In other words, a traitor — Apollodorus

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

That sounds like an admission that some invasions ARE legitimate! :grin: — Apollodorus

Allies halting at the borders of the Third Reich...because of the sovereignty of Nazi Germany is one of those questions of some invasions. Of course, it is needles to say (except for you), that Germany invaded Poland, which started WW2.

How ironic, coming from someone who wishes his country would join an organization that exists for one purpose only: war. — baker

Well, we don't have a 1340km border with Canada.

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Russians have always seen Crimea as Russian and Ukraine as a sister nation together with Belarus. — Apollodorus

Showing that brotherly love now to your sister, right?