Which region and currency could be considered more stable going forward? — Christoffer

Mark Blyth said the Russians asked the Chinese to ditch the dollar (which could have resulted in a run on the dollar). The Chinese refused because they're too heavily invested in the US. The world economy is too integrated right now to do much about the reserve currency. Somewhere down the line they might change, but I don't see how it really makes much difference.

The world economy is too integrated right now to do much about the reserve currency. Somewhere down the line they might change, but I don't see how it really makes much difference. — frank

It can also change slowly by more unnoticeably exchanging currency into something else. And only after a more broad overview will it be obvious that nations change currency reserves into something else. In order to not unbalance the economy too much. The Chinese reluctance has more to do with how China use business to become powerful. The obvious mistake that Russia is doing is believing that they can use military force to gain geopolitical power, but that's an old dream for conservatives. The new world order is that of China's strategy to buy in and own companies in other nations while setting up dependence trade between them and the rest of the world. Effectively making them too much of a pillar of world economy to ever be threatened by war. Some understands this and sanction against China, but far too many are naive and stupid when it comes to how China operates. Like, I don't understand how so many naive and stupid business owners in Sweden want to establish factories for Chinese companies, and then when national security deny such business to be established based on national security issues, these CEOs are surprised and sad they couldn't start that business. The lack of education and knowledge about this is astounding. I'd say, regardless of how effective a business gets by using China, cut down and cut out business with China completely until they show themselves to be a nation functioning on human rights values.

I'd say that globally, nations with good human rights values and structures should go into an alliance. Based on low corruption and democratic values within each nation. Build a military security, free trade between themselves, free movement, and a strong political collaboration. Then cut out all the nations who can't live up to those standards only to invite them when they prove to be on that level. It gives an incentive to join the alliance/union, but also a security and protection against the undeveloped shitty nations who don't give a shit about human rights. It then becomes easier to pressure these nations on their violations to human rights. And they will not be able to form that great of an alliance themselves, since they operate on so much corruption and authoritarianism that they eventually implode. We can see it in the BRICS collaboration, that the foundation is so shaky it's a parody of actual international collaboration.

I think that we should ditch the geographical locations and look more towards national values. Like a EU but globally, for stable democracies who operate on human rights. Of course there's fine details in this, but as a broad concept, there's no reason the EU couldn't expand into being in alliance with countries like Canada and New Zeeland for example. Opening up free trade and travel like that will expand the power of the union into something more than just some defense against Europe spiraling back into world wars again.

There is an abundance of fake news (original definition) on social media. The list is common sense: it's ridiculous to give equal credibility to every comment one sees on the internet, irrespective of source. Do you not personally do something similar to the items listed?

JD Vance’s speech to Europe’s elites was a dressing-down of the old establishment for their totalitarianism. In it he reiterated what he thought were the shared values of freedom, the ones both purported to fight for in the latter half of the last century, all of which seems to have disappeared in the next.

But we ought to remember that Europe was the cauldron of not only the politics of freedom, but also of repression and absolutism. Now, at this moment, it’s difficult to discern which spirit prevails on that continent.

In Germany you can be arrested for insulting a politician online. 60 minutes just did a little show on it, revealing to millions of Americans the political state of that country.

In the same episode the CBS crew follow around German stormtroopers as they raided people’s houses in the middle of the night and steal their laptops, phones, and other properties, for allegedly posting online things the state does not approve of. What appears to be routine in that country is anathema to the bill of rights in the United States, so-much-so that Americans ought to wonder why their tax-dollars go to defending the Old World from outside enemies when perhaps they should look at the ones within.

We know that the current European establishment is averse to so-called political strongmen, and perhaps rightfully so, but the political weakmen (to coin a term) have proven themselves to be not much better. They appear similar in method and lust for control and power, differing only in rhetoric and style. Vance mentioned that the Romanian courts annulled the election and upended democracy when the populist candidate won, on the premise that Russian misinformation promoted him. Democracy and the free-flow of information becomes a hurdle when their side loses, and never themselves are to blame.

All of this should promote one to wonder: Why are we in NATO? And why are American tax-payer dollars supporting this illiberal order?

A typical example of a political weakman would be German diplomat Christoph Heugsen, in response to Vance:

I think you (as well as frank) and others have a weird obsession that we owe you something. A false belief that you are protecting us pro bono. I don't even understand your position since you are Canadian, not American.

NATO and other Western-like and American-ish institutions, like the International Monetary Fund or United Nations, were made to orbit to the side of American interests. It is even funny since the US was the only country in recent history to drop nuclear bombs on another sovereign nation. Hence, I think American foreign policy should have never been entitled to build 'institutions' of the free world. But I understand the context, and Europe was helpless and divided, so we were basically forced to accept the rules of your world.

What you can't do now is destroy what you imposed on us after decades. Dissolving NATO and trying to build an EU military organisation seems the most rational thing to me.

Alas, you guys will always be there. You don't trust the elites of Brussels unless your friends (AfD, for instance) are the ones in charge. It is sad how we always misunderstood Russia. Weren't they the evil here? Because now your 'elected' and 'democratic' politicians are the ones who are threatening. We did a damn effort dispensing Russian natural resources because they were the threat, and look how many economic sanctions our institution put on their shoulders.

Why haven't we done the same when you nuked Japan? Ah, got ya. Because the 'good' ones were acting in that case.

Decades of being a pain in the ass imposing how the world should act: McDonald's everywhere, Hollywood films and flawed Apple devices too. Now, you don't want the rest of the world as your favourite toy because most of us don't buy the paranoia of your convicted felon in charge. :groan:

"Why are we in NATO?" is a question Europeans should ask not you, mates.

I am American.

But you're absolutely right about everything else. I believe the US should not have inserted itself in European affairs, policed the world, and it is culpable for all of which you mention. Its cultural imperialism has rendered the EU into an overtaxed woke tyranny, a state of affairs which many seek to defend. For a while Europeans were too busy enjoying their freedoms to want to defend them. Who knows where you'd be if the Americans hadn't infiltrated the European psyche? I'm not sure. All I know is it needs to end, and that time might be now.

I am American. — NOS4A2

Sorry, my bad. I think I read you were Canadian somewhere in this long thread.


Fine. Thanks. We approached a similar point, and I hope it will be taken politely, but we can't know what the future holds.

I am Canadian.

No, I agree with all you wrote Javi.

Why haven't we done the same when you nuked Japan? — javi2541997

You know, Japan started that.

The new world order is that of China's strategy to buy in and own companies in other nations while setting up dependence trade between them and the rest of the world. — Christoffer

It's better than military influence, right?

How do Americans benefit from the dollar being used in global trade? — frank

How? You really don't know?

This is the problem. Because your whole system of debt spending relies on this!!!

You don't have to care about a possible current account crisis. You don't have to worry about foreign currency reserves. Here's an important part from the link above:

Common sense suggests that if a country fritters away its borrowed foreign funds on spending that yields no long-term productive gains, then its ability to repay—its basic solvency—might come into question. This is because solvency requires that the country be willing and able to generate (eventually) sufficient current account surpluses to repay what it has borrowed to finance the current account deficits.

Just think about it this way. Assume that your government needed money, but had to take a loan in euros, and only then changed this to dollars to pay salaries of government workers or to pay social security. Well, evidently the government would have to then to pay that loan back in euros, and you would have to have a foreign currency reserve. Now if you would then just do what you do now, print money, and take that debt from the central bank, this would weaken the dollar. Then those euro-debt would rise in value and be an even bigger problem. You aren't in charge of euros, the ECB is.

But as your dollar is the reserve currency, you don't have to give a fuck about this. You can always print more dollars! Because crucial things like oil are bought and sold in US dollars, even by third party countries. Because they are OK with this, because of the whole goddam "international ruled based order", which your brain dead president is now trying to destroy, because somehow it's bad for you.

So don't think it's just the awesomeness of the US economy, it's basically what your greatest generation gave to you by winning WW2 and being the only major country around that wasn't bombed to shit. Keynes tried to talk some role for the pound or the idea of Bancor, but no, it would be the US dollar as the reserve currency.

And this is why you should understand that when Putin or Xi Jinping talk about the unfair edge given to the dollar, it's a direct attack against the US.

Why Putin loves gold. They have that in Russia too, and you cannot print it.

You don't have to worry about foreign currency reserves. — ssu

I think all large banks keep foreign currency reserves.

JD Vance’s speech to Europe’s elites was a dressing-down of the old establishment for their totalitarianism. In it he reiterated what he thought were the shared values of freedom, the ones both purported to fight for in the latter half of the last century, all of which seems to have disappeared in the next. — NOS4A2

Yeah.

Coming from an administration that itself is a word police erasing wrong words government website and punishes new agencies if the dare to talk about "Gulf of Mexico". Yet that isn't the ironic thing here, it's that an administration which doesn't care at all about the separation of powers and simply uses executive orders as coming from an absolute monarch then comes to preach about the freedom of speech with making overtures to the elections of specific countries.

So hell your freedom in JD Vance's speech, it doesn't have anything to do with freedom or democracy or what a republic and a justice state should stand for. Everything is just partisanship, supporting your party and there are no values at all, just beneficial and advantageous political positions. Only when it would be a democrat president, you would be for the limitation of executive power and giving back the Congress the role it has (assuming you would have majority there) and would be worried about the separation of powers or the independence of the courts. But when you have the power, you are voting to have the Caesar. Because evidently the Republic doesn't work.

And many, including my own president, made the correct conclusion of JD's scolding: this was far more for the American audience (people like you) than it was to engage Europeans.

Vance mentioned that the Romanian courts annulled the election and upended democracy when the populist candidate won, on the premise that Russian misinformation promoted him. — NOS4A2

And the elections are rescheduled for May. So your pro-Putin candidate can win then, if the Romanians really want him.

Former liberal leader Crin Antonescu, the candidate announced by the coalition formed by the Social Democratic Party, the National Liberal Party, and Hungarian minority party UDMR for the presidential elections, stated that far-right politician Călin Georgescu should be able to run in the upcoming elections. According to the schedule agreed by the ruling coalition leaders, the presidential elections should be held again in May.

I think all large banks keep foreign currency reserves. — frank

Reserves of private banks aren't the same as the reserves kept by the central bank. Private banks use the given currency of the country, they don't have to worry about the current account.

Only in Russia the accounts of the private banks are also the accounts of the government. No really, even before Putin, it was like Gazprom financed the war in Chechnya during the Yeltsin era, because Gazprom had money and the Russian government didn't.

I'm not sure that if the US Navy goes to fight the Chinese, it will be solely financed by Merril Lynch or Chevron.

The US debt is mainly to US banks.

Think again where the public debt is.




Do notice, that already the largest owner of US treasury debt is the Central Bank itself. When that is the majority ownership, guess what happens at some instance?

When that is the majority ownership, guess what happens at some instance? — ssu

What?

What? — frank

Think about it. If all the debt that you put out is bought by your own central bank, what will that mean to the dollar?

And by all means this isn't just about the US. Everybody is doing the same.

Think about it. If all the debt that you put out is bought by your own central bank, what will that mean to the dollar? — ssu

Nothing

It's better than military influence, right? — frank

I don’t know. At least military action has obvious counter-actions and power plays that are quantifiable. This entanglement into every corner of global trade and industry gives them insight into so much more than traditional espionage and an ability to circumvent normal channels of influence.

People in the west are so naïve as to think that a communist state would operate on the same divide between the free market and government, but there’s absolutely nothing free about the market in China and therefor any influence by corporations with takeovers and establishing business in other nations is opening a back door into their nations that people believe is just about some Chinese company… no, it’s both the company and state involved.

This is why national security in almost all free democracies warn about Chinese companies growing too powerful within their borders. Compared to the Vodka-fueled absolute moron-state that is Russia, China is smart and plays the long game into power. The only thing at the moment that can ruin things for them is their own economy collapsing.

I believe the US should not have inserted itself in European affairs, policed the world, and it is culpable for all of which you mention. Its cultural imperialism has rendered the EU into an overtaxed woke tyranny, a state of affairs which many seek to defend. For a while Europeans were too busy enjoying their freedoms to want to defend them. Who knows where you'd be if the Americans hadn't infiltrated the European psyche? I'm not sure. All I know is it needs to end, and that time might be now. — NOS4A2

Hear, hear!

Nothing — frank

History or reality begs to differ.

Monetary economics is something that people should know. It truly impacts everybody.

And many, including my own president, made the correct conclusion of JD's scolding: this was far more for the American audience (people like you) than it was to engage Europeans — ssu

I disagree. It has very much engaged the Europeans. It is viewed as a Crisis, a major turning point.

With this in mind, I have started a new thread:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15786/european-or-global-crisis

I disagree. It has very much engaged the Europeans. — Amity

Especially at the German elections, which rather upset both the acting administration and the opposition (only with the AfD cheering for the support they).

Well, perhaps European countries should start to root for the Democrats to take back their country from the threat of tyranny of Trump and Trump's efforts to dismantle the Republic. That I guess would warm the Atlantic ties, right?

People try still to be diplomatic and to work with the Trump government. That's the point here.

Well, perhaps European countries should start to root for the Democrats — ssu

We should not root for anyone but to build a shield capable of protecting us from the coming high-voltage wave when the last pillar of their democracy finally collapses.

Last I heard your president was raving with celebrities and taking drug tests.

JD’s historic speech wasn’t for Europeans, it was for the stuffy bureaucrats in the room, many of whom were wearing military uniforms for some reason. In fact Vance defended the European citizens who were roundly silenced by the weak commissars of European governments for the smallest of speech and thought crimes. Does anyone in the EU do the same? The parasitic tentacles of the EU better find another host to suck the blood from because the Great Satan is no longer going to stand around and allow it, especially when the Old World descends back into the tyranny that ruined it in the first place.

Well that didn't sound psychotic at all.

It’s text. It doesn’t sound like anything. Are the voices in your head throwing you off?

That is strikingly similar to a Speech by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán given at a meeting of the Patriots for Europe Party.

Some of the more purple bits would also be at home at the Alternative for Germany where Vance gave a cheery high five.

Strikingly similar? It's not even close. I'm not sure if you're joking or trying to pull a fast one.