[HN Gopher] Ghana plans to buy oil with gold instead of dollars ___________________________________________________________________ Ghana plans to buy oil with gold instead of dollars Author : quyleanh Score : 144 points Date : 2022-11-25 09:23 UTC (13 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.aljazeera.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.aljazeera.com) | jdmoreira wrote: | Bypass the petrodollar? Very risky business. What a great way to | end up suffering from a three letter agency triggered coup d'etat | max51 wrote: | >three letter agency triggered coup d'etat | | that's if ghana is lucky and they don't try to liberate them | from [insert lies] with bombing and boots on the ground. | AlbertCory wrote: | Naive question, but: since they do have crude oil, could they | swap that for refined oil products? | jonnybgood wrote: | This has nothing to do with USD dominance as many are suggesting. | Ghana is running out of USD reserves and has to resort to buying | with gold. Nothing suggests they wouldn't use USD if they had it. | factorialboy wrote: | It has everything to do with USD dominance. | | Countries have resources thus commodities. Commodities have | value. Real value. | | Trade in local currencies can be backed by these commodities. | | Necessity will force countries to find USD alternatives. | pakitan wrote: | > Necessity will force countries to find USD alternatives. | | You're misunderstanding the fundamental problem. It's not | about a "shortage" of USD for Ghana, where they ran out of | USD suppliers and no one is willing to sell them USD so they | will need to switch to RUB. | | You get USD by exporting stuff and you can import stuff when | you spend USD. The fundamental problem for Ghana is that they | need to import valuable stuff but they are running out of | valuable stuff to export in exchange, hence their USD | reserves are dwindling. You can't solve that problem by | changing the currency. If someone is to give you their RUB, | they'll still want valuable stuff in exchange. | jkepler wrote: | Add to this that the US Federal government has conducted | numerous hot wars to protect USD dominance. Remember when | Saddam Hussain and then Kadafi in Libya each started selling | dollars for euros? War. | https://bitcoinmagazine.com/markets/petrodollar-deep-dive- | wi... | | But now the US is even destroying confidence in the dollar, | through its confiscation of the Afgan central bank reserves | (which included private citizens' deposit accounts) and | distributing the money to families of Sept 11th victims; or | freezing the Russian central bank reserves, even though the | international settlement system was meant to be apolitical. | giaour wrote: | > even though the international settlement system was meant | to be apolitical | | "Apolitical" does not mean "usable by any party for any | transaction." SWIFT policy prohibits using its system in | support of illegal activity [0], and the settlement system | has been denied to sanctioned countries before [1]. | | [0]: https://www.swift.com/about- | us/legal/compliance-0/fighting-i... | | [1]: https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2018/11/5/what- | swift-is-an... | luciusdomitius wrote: | What prevents them exchanging gold for $ like all other gold | producers are doing? This is probably what they themselves were | doing beforehands? | notahacker wrote: | This sibling comment has the answer to that: it helps | disguise the margin the government makes on gold it | compulsory purchases from local miners in local currency | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33742853 | | Also helps to look like you're doing _something_ about a debt | crisis even if the net effect is minimal or negative... | analog31 wrote: | It shouldn't be hard for the miners to guess that margin, | given that the market price of gold can be looked up. | | Gold is, for all intents and purposes, usable as money, at | least between sophisticated parties such as governments. It | lacks some of the features of USD, but if Ghana is out of | USD, then those features don't matter to them. | notahacker wrote: | Oh, the mining company management will know what the spot | price in dollars is and if the spot price offered in | cedis doesn't seem fair. But "we've found a cunning new | way to exploit our gold reserves" is a better PR line to | the general public than "we're fudging the figures a bit | in our favoir* | | Look at HN's _somewhat_ sophisticated audience heralding | it as a power move against the dollar rather than a | country scrabbling around for ways to dig itself out of a | financial hole caused in part because the dollar holds | value much better than their own currency. | notahacker wrote: | It's also a country once known as the "Gold Coast" whose | largest export is gold. I don't think they'd be proposing to | acquire it otherwise... | danielschonfeld wrote: | It has everything to do with USD dominance. Ghana is shouting | out loud I can't get my hands on USD. They're echoing what the | global market in general has been pricing. | | Now true, having your product be a hot commodity everybody | wants is good for business but there's only so much of that | before your competitor starts offering a more readily available | product. | | Pepper that with some morally objectionable stances the US has | taken over the past 22 years and suddenly your ultra safe and | liquid commodity while still good and desirable for this | present crisis might not be as desirable for the post crisis | era. Where one crack starts many others can possibly form. | enkid wrote: | Wouldn't any attempt to alleviate demand make inflation | worse, when it already at levels not seen in decades? | ars wrote: | > Ghana is shouting out loud I can't get my hands on USD. | | That doesn't make sense - just take some gold, and buy USD. | Is there some physical shortage of paper or something? | codehalo wrote: | [deleted] | MonkeyClub wrote: | If you're referring to the paper USD is printed on, it's | cotton rather than paper. | | But even if there was a shortage, I doubt that on a country | level USD (or any currency, for that matter) is bought in | physical form - it's just credited to the country's bank | account. | ectopod wrote: | It is paper. Paper made with cotton. | hbarka wrote: | It's a blend of linen and cotton. | | Linen comes from the flax plant and cotton comes from the | cotton plant. | | Linen versus cotton have a great history. Linen was used | on WW1 era airplanes as outer skins because it didn't run | like cotton canvas when the material was shot through. | markdown wrote: | So paper made with linen and cotton. | immibis wrote: | If getting its hands on USD is hard, where's it going to get | gold...? | mythrwy wrote: | Out of the ground maybe. Ghana is the leading gold producer | in Africa. | Ekaros wrote: | Ghana mined 117.6 tons of gold in 2021... So from ground. | jkepler wrote: | Doesn't help that the US seems set on destroying the world's | confidence in the US dollar: first the 2008 financial crises | and monetary creation (I.e. devaluation) in response; then | much more recently they hammered nails in the coffin of | Breton Woods 2 (I.e. the post-1971 monetary status quo of | floating fiat currencies) by confiscating the Afghan Central | Bank's reserves (which included private individuals' | deposits, and they gave the money to families of September | 11th victims) and by freezing the assets of the Russian | Central Bank. inter-Central Bank settlements were supposed to | be apolitical. All that in the context of multiple hot wars | (Iran in 2003 and then Libya, perhaps?) and military actions | that appear to be in defense of US dollar dominance: | https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/the-hidden-costs-of- | the-.... | enkid wrote: | If people's confidence was destroyed, it wouldn't be in | high demand. | delecti wrote: | > Doesn't help that the US seems set on destroying the | world's confidence in the US dollar | | Over the last 15 years, USD has increased in value against | the Ghanaian Cedi by almost 16x. If we're trying to destroy | confidence in USD, then Ghana sure makes it seem like we're | doing an awful job. | | https://www.google.com/search?q=1+USD+to+GHS&oq=1+USD+to+GH | S | jkepler wrote: | You're correct that the Cedi has lost value compared with | the US dollar while existing in a world where USD is one | side if nearly every international business transaction. | | However, look at the US dollar over longer durations | against wheat [1], copper [2], gold[3], or Bitcoin [4]: | the dollar buys significantly less than 10, 15, 40, or | 100 years ago. | | While the Cedi may be much weaker against the dollar, the | dollar is loosing against real commodities/assets that | can't simply be created by banker's fiat. | | So, the dollar's the cleanest dirty shirt in the room. | And Ghana just announced that they'd rather trade oil for | a clean shirt (gold) rather than taking a dirty one. | | [1] https://www.macrotrends.net/2534/wheat-prices- | historical-cha... | | [2] https://www.macrotrends.net/1476/copper-prices- | historical-ch... | | [3] https://goldprice.org/gold-price-charts/15-year-gold- | price-h... / For 100 year chart, | https://www.macrotrends.net/1333/historical-gold- | prices-100-... | | [4] https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=USD&to=BTC&vi | ew=10Y | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | Why can't they get dollars? | | I was under the impression that you can buy dollars much | easier than oil. | bagels wrote: | Buy them with what? The implication is that nobody wants to | accept Ghana currency. | zizee wrote: | Typically exports are used to gather USD. It sounds like | Ghana has gold. Presumably people want their gold? They | could sell the gold for USD, then use that to purchase | the oil. | | But using the gold for currency does sound like it could | be more efficient, cutting out the middleman. | | Note: normally countries maitain a float of foreign | reserves for this, and I'm guessing this stash of | economic lubrication has run a business dry for Ghana and | they don't have the luxury of rebuilding their reserves, | and hoping to use gold as a more immediate solution. | markdown wrote: | Implication? Only a handful of currencies are accepted in | international trade. | danielschonfeld wrote: | Because the world has an anemic shortage of dollars. | | The reason for that is post 2008 banks have become much | more risk averse (seeing what happened to Lehman et al) and | they are mostly the conduit through which broad currency is | generated. That mechanism is mostly broken unless you're an | ultra rich company like Apple or Google. | | So today to make a bank create USD for you you'd be | required to have the best of the best collateral namely | sovereign bonds. As it stands the US hasn't taken even | close to enough debt and thus issued Treasuries to even | come close to the shortage in dollars that banks' risk | aversion has created since 2008. | gtirloni wrote: | Are you advocating for printing more USD? | | _edit: not sure why I 'm being downvoted for asking a | relevant question_ | whatever1 wrote: | People outside the US love it, so no issue with devaluing | the USD if we print an extra couple of trillions. | | The main issue is that the global supply chain cannot | literally serve richer American consumers, so the cost of | supply increases and everyone (in the US and out) faces | inflation pressure. | miguelazo wrote: | People outside the US _loved_ it. Recent moves by Japan, | Switzerland and some others in the (quickly-losing- | liquidity) Treasury Market suggest that era is coming to | a close. | kobalsky wrote: | no one with savings in USD is glad that it inflated, but | the reality is that other easily accesible currencies bit | the dust harder. | ghostwriter wrote: | > People outside the US loved it. | | Correction: foreign central banks guided by IMF | subsidiaries loved it dearly, people - not that much, | perhaps the opposite [1] | | [1] https://youtu.be/p5Ac7ap_MAY?t=1769 | ars wrote: | If we devalue the USD all that will happen is the price | of oil, as denominated in USD, will go up. You don't | actually accomplish anything. | MerelyMortal wrote: | Maybe the edit could have instead provided clarification to | why it's relevant. | rsync wrote: | I downvoted you because you complained about your | downvotes. | | Don't watch the score and, _especially_ , don't complain | about it. | gtirloni wrote: | I did not complain. Maybe you should revisit your | downvoting principles. | | I inquired why I was being downvoted for asking a | question. I was genuinely curious about how that was bad. | ketzo wrote: | Just bad form to mention your own score, period. | benj111 wrote: | True, but if you ask a genuine question and get | downvotes, what are you supposed to infer from that? | | Yes it may be bad form to mention your own score, but | it's equally bad form to downvote for asking a question, | or read into a question something that wasn't said which | may require a down vote. | | Why don't you take the time to answer the parents | question rather than downvote them for querying why their | question got downvotes? | | If there's anywhere that appreciates the gaining of | knowledge on the internet, surely hn must be one of the | top candidates. So why downvote questions? And yes it's | happened to me multiple times, and it's bloody annoying. | Doubly so because you know if you try to clarify you'll | get someone downvoting you because why? I don't know. | Because that would be 'bad form'? BS. | | /Rant | dislikedtom2 wrote: | Often I think it means that you asked a painful question. | Don't think that downvotes are always bad, they merely | just tell what is popular, just like in reddit. | danielschonfeld wrote: | Generally speaking yes. If from your question I deduce that | you're worried about how much we already "printed" then do | some googling over why the common citing of growth of M2 | chart is interpreted wrong. | | Spoiler - we didn't print nearly as much as you think we | did. And we generally haven't even scratched the surface of | how much more a normal growth of the currency since 2008 | was needed. | | The question that needs to be asked is more political and | societal than monetary. Does the US want to lead the world | by resuming at marketing a more true and secular beacon of | hope and freedom or does it want to become isolationist and | toe the line of each dog to its own. If we choose the | former the question than arises if that's even still | possible and if we ever were true to it or were we just | lucky enough to enjoy the arbitrage of developing countries | not having developed yet. | | I personally don't have all the answers but it seems to me | that combined with our questionable moral standing in the | last 22 years and our secular stagnation the latter is the | path we're choosing to follow. | shyn3 wrote: | Dear Ghana. See Libya. R.I.P Ghana. | trash3 wrote: | shyn3 wrote: | Not sure why the reply got downvoted. Ghadafi tried to switch | to the gold standard. America isn't backed by gold so it's a | threat. | Kukumber wrote: | Let's not forget: | | Iraq nets handsome profit by dumping dollar for euro (2003) | | https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/feb/16/iraq.theeur... | lizardactivist wrote: | The world needs to get off the blood currency that is the U.S | Dollar. | | But I hope the U.S doesn't do to Ghana what they did to Libya, | the last country to try something along those lines: forment | revolt and overthrow the government, then literally sack the | country and leave with billions in gold bars, and say they gave | the country freedom and democracy. | aa-jv wrote: | This is great news for the people of Ghana .. and I hope it | serves as an example for many other nations to come. The era of | enslavement to the petrodollar is over. | kaladin_1 wrote: | Interesting the pressure is increasing. More and more countries | questioning why they need to base their foreign transaction on | the US Dollar. Could this mounting unrest be as a result of the | seeming inability of the US Federal bank in checking inflation of | the US Dollar. | | Also, some of these Nations can no longer determine what benefit | it is to them is using the US Dollar as their reserve currency | and trading currency. Some nations might have alternative | properties/currencies that would favour their external trade but | yet they are stock with the Dollar and must defer to the US in | all that concerns it. | | I would really love someone more knowledgeable to make a | prediction as to where all these could be going. | | Do you see a country like Saudi going off the USD? Do you think | the West-African countries relying on CFA will turn away from | that any time soon? Is there a case to be made why these nations | should maintain the status quo? | Zigurd wrote: | The reason US$ denominate most trade is that without what is | broadly referred to as "The West" global trade would not move. | Trade would not be protected by a web of alliances among | developed nations. If that goes away, ships would not be | insured. Uninsured ships would be lost to pirates and rogue | nations. Prices would jump sharply. Supply chains would have to | go back to warehousing enough supply to withstand disruptions. | Warehoused parts would become stranded assets when products | change. Growth would be choked off. | | This is not an excuse for imperialism and crony capitalism that | exploits developing nations. Especially in how multinational | oil companies corrupt entire nations. Working toward the end of | fossil fuels will hasten them losing their power. But the | lesson of this year is that those dull bureaucratic things like | NATO and the EU are what keeps fascistic autocrats contained | and gives aggressor nations the thrashing they deserve. | | Even the Tories are realizing they got played by Putin's plan | to divide the nations that could hold him back. | luciusdomitius wrote: | The petrodollar is a really weird thing. According to its | critics, it is a global monopoly on violence and pure | extortion, to its implementors - merely a conspiracy theory. | Please, before you clinge to the conspiracy theory label, check | how many great people such as de Gaulle have whined against it | and what is Privilege l'exorbitant in French political science. | | In reality, global trade is not in USD purely because it is | backed by carriers and they can invade anyone, but because this | navy also protects shipping lanes and offers international rule | of law. Remember when the US took a break in the gulf of Aden | and it took us Europeans (+Russia and token help from US!!) | years to agree and secure it. So, things are not black and | white. | | Anyway, this system is collapsing from within and will be | replacing. The success of the S.Arabia pivot is going to merely | decide if it happens in 10 or 20 years time. Btw does anyone | know how did the MBS-Xi meating go? | eunos wrote: | > Petrodollar Is rather remnant of the past. FYI I think half | of world forex reserve is held in the 5 entities in East Asia | (CN, JP,KR,TW,HK). Whatever dollar the Petrostate get (sans | Russia) they recycled it to various goods and services mostly | sourced from East Asia. | | > Btw does anyone know how did the MBS-Xi meating go? | | Will commence in December, previously rumored didn't happen | imtringued wrote: | The exorbitant privilege thing is kind of strange when | countries voluntarily demand more dollars or even borrow | dollars. The "privilege" is only exorbitant if you are the | only survivor of a world war. | SuoDuanDao wrote: | Somewhere in my comment history I made the prediction "It will | be possible to buy large amounts of oil without USD by 2024" - | so I think I've got a decent track record on this subject. | | I'm much less confident in these predictions than that one, but | I'll predict Saudi Arabia won't go off the USD because they | depend on US military support in a pretty warlike part of the | world and the CFA will be replaced by 2027 as currently planned | without any major interference from the European powers. | | As for a case for maintaining the status quo - The example made | of Ghaddafi comes to mind. | snovv_crash wrote: | CFA? What are you referring to here, not the financial | certification institution I'm guessing? | SuoDuanDao wrote: | had to google it too: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_African_CFA_franc | nivenkos wrote: | The US is exploiting it to the maximum with the Inflation | Reduction Act, etc. | | The rest of the world will react eventually, the Zelenksy- | Putin puppet show will only distract them for so long. | norswap wrote: | > Could this mounting unrest be as a result of the seeming | inability of the US Federal bank in checking inflation of the | US Dollar. | | This is completely backwards. The problem right now is that the | dollar is too _strong_ , meaning expensive wrt other | currencies. In this context, inflation of the USD supply, | leading to devaluation of the USD would actually help other | countries that are suffering from the strong dollar. | | I'm not saying it would be good for the US, but it certainly | would be good for pretty much everybody else. | danielschonfeld wrote: | And there in lies the rub. To keep countries placated we need | to create more debt, a metric ton of more debt and hence more | broad currency. But doing so at the moment is political | suicide as is proven by the left's efforts (deficit spending | blah blah etc). | | Triffin paradox predicted in the 60s at it's full glory. | | It's also worth noting that at the moment both the Fed and | the Treasury (obv) are mandated to be operating with an | inward looking view only. Meaning we run a global reserve | currency with no 'department' in charge of the global part. | rsync wrote: | "Meaning we run a global reserve currency with no | 'department' in charge of the global part." | | You are mistaken - there is an enormous "department" in | charge of the global part: the US Navy. | jacooper wrote: | And this the entire problem. | | The dollar shouldn't be a global currency. | colechristensen wrote: | Why? The eurozone can't hold itself together, China is a | house of cards with bad planned economy failures, the uk | isn't worth mentioning any more, and everywhere else | either has unstable economies or economies based on | volatile or limited lifetime commodities. | | The dollar is the global reserve currency because the US | has centuries of reasonable behavior and military and | natural resources that guarantee long term stability. | There isn't a better option unless you're playing | temporary political games or if your macroeconomic | situation is so bad you can't play the game normally. | kyboren wrote: | I don't think this should be downvoted. I believe this is | all 100% correct. | | Maybe because of the "left's deficit spending" part, which | is not wrong, but ignores the right's historical deficit | spending (e.g. TCJA). Or perhaps the "political suicide" | part is misinterpreted: It would be political suicide for a | politician to interfere with Fed policy and undercut their | blunt force effort to reduce domestic inflation. | | But any way you slice it, right now the Triffin dilemma is | indeed _exactly_ what we 're experiencing. | [deleted] | Spooky23 wrote: | Unlikely. Ghana happens to be a gold producer; they may see | this as a better deal for them, and may get some other benefit | from a country like China for rattling the cage. | colechristensen wrote: | What's more likely is that Ghana is using monetary policy as | a cover for acquiring locally produced gold at a lower price | and selling it abroad for resources to make up for trade | deficits. | edwnj wrote: | Its definitely not a lack of confidence in USD or the feds. | Relative to pretty much every noteworthy alternative, the feds | have handled things a lot better. | | - EU royally f'd with their stimulus & rates. Mind you, they | were in a very precarious position to start with. - China has | proven themselves to be a house of cards with zero covid, | massive public/corporate debt bubbles and Ji becoming god | emperor. - Russia is a glorified gas station with an economy | the size of florida. | | The reason for Ghana's action, Saudi looking to end petro | dollar, China+Russia looking to form a block etc: US deep state | ducking up big time. | | The weaponised the dollar.. They've been ramping this up big | time during the past few decades but the Ukraine War was a | UUUUGE reveal the cards moment. | | During the last 2 years, Russia was filling up their coffers | with high oil prices. The US turned these foreign reserves into | worthless numbers on a screen overnight with the press of a few | buttons. | | Now pretty much every country is looking at each other like "oh | shit". | jonnybgood wrote: | Ghana isn't questioning anything. They're just running out of | USD. | qikInNdOutReply wrote: | Could this lead to a chain reactions, were countries abandon | the dollar and the dollar looses in value, in return leading to | more countries abandon it? A world were the most stabilizing | region and its currency become temporary hegemon? | Isinlor wrote: | Ghana GDP is 77.59 billion USD. That's almost 2 Twitters :) . | | Ghana is not triggering any chain reactions. | speedylight wrote: | Lucky for them, otherwise the US would've sent some freedom | and democracy their way. | hardlianotion wrote: | Seems unlikely. | nequo wrote: | Ghana's GDP is flow while Twitter's valuation is stock.[1] | Given that Twitter's EBITDA was $211mn, it is more accurate | to say that Ghana's GDP is 368 Twitters. | | (Which also sounds crazy nevertheless.) | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_and_flow | KptMarchewa wrote: | I agree that GDP-stock comparison is not good, but why | compare to EBITDA rather than revenue or expenses? | nequo wrote: | I'm not going to say that I have strong views on this | right now. But the reason I used EBITDA is that GDP is | the total value added of the economy. EBITDA is the total | value added of the company. | Majromax wrote: | > EBITDA is the total value added of the company. | | I don't think that's quite the right interpretation. | EBIDTA is the value added of the company _net its | employees_ (and I 'd quibble over depreciation and | taxes), whereas GDP includes the labour share. | | Imagine we had a single-company country, where every | worker was also a customer, all costs were internalized, | and capital did not depreciate. The GDP of the country | would be equal to the profit of the company plus the | wages of the employees. | | Using the EBITDA equivalence, however, the GDP of the | one-company country would be more (possibly far more) | than "the one company's earnings." | nequo wrote: | Yes, that's a good point. | | In principle, Twitter's market value is the net present | value of its future profits, which excludes input costs. | So the closest concept to parent's comparison (GDP vs. | market value) is GDP vs. profits. | | > The GDP of the country would be equal to the profit of | the company plus the wages of the employees. | | Also plus any other input costs, like rent, electricity, | loans, etc., right? | | So GDP vs. revenue would be the comparison that would | include both profits and input costs. | hdhdxkfchsk wrote: | saudi? no. they are the only elites not tied to petrodollar by | force but by financial incentives. | | all the others probably no as they will see the new gana | embargo :( | | the terms first world and second world were originally coined | to means country under petrodollar and countries under ussr. | third world was a term that meant free for all to the to two | powers. | sys_64738 wrote: | You ultimately need to pay in some common currency so which | common currency do you trust to be secure from inflationary | pressures or government interference? Do you trust the Euro to | not implode? Do you trust the Chinese Communists with their Yen | manipulation? The US dollar is the last currency standing after | all others are disqualified. | 0x445442 wrote: | I think it's more an issue of other countries seeing that the | U.S. can just confiscate their dollar reserves if the US | doesn't agree with their sovereign actions. Those countries are | choosing to divest from the mono world order which is | crumbling. For a long but instructive discussion on current | economic events check out this interview. | | https://youtu.be/cD_UcRtljDU | Hayvok wrote: | "Mono world order" is a fun euphemism for "boo hoo we're not | allowed to run around the planet conquering other people". | | You're free to "divest" as you put it... But you're still | expected to behave & play nicely with your neighbors. | rayiner wrote: | "Mono world order" is the appropriate term when the US can | go around conquering other people in their perceived self | interest (Iraq, Afghanistan) but says nobody else can. | steve76 wrote: | Hayvok wrote: | If you want the real-politick answer then "yeah, | absolutely". What's your point? | | But the U.S empire has been pretty amazing for a pretty | amazing number of people across the globe, and it is | shockingly easy to stay on the good side of U.S. foreign | policy. | | Be reasonably democratic, don't genocide undesirable | elements of your population, don't pick on other | reasonably democratic countries, don't threaten world | trade and resources, don't steal all the Americans' stuff | by suddenly socializing industries in your country, don't | fund terrorist activity against them. | | Yeah you can find exceptions to every one of those listed | items - welcome to global politics. | jacooper wrote: | > But the U.S empire has been pretty amazing for a pretty | amazing number of people across the globe, and it is | shockingly easy to stay on the good side of U.S. foreign | policy. | | Hell no | | > Be reasonably democratic, don't genocide undesirable | elements of your population, don't pick on other | reasonably democratic countries, don't threaten world | trade and resources, don't steal all the Americans' stuff | by suddenly socializing industries in your country, don't | fund terrorist activity against them. | | I'm sure Iraq and Palestine would agree. | | And of course the country that did very well to the | world, also wanted to illegally control the worlds | population for its own interest. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Study_Mem | ora... | | > Yeah you can find exceptions to every one of those | listed items - welcome to global politics. | | Which is why everyone wants to get rid of the dollar. | trasz2 wrote: | KptMarchewa wrote: | US can confiscate your dollar reserves if you keep those | dollars in the US, just as they can confiscate your gold | reserves if you keep them in the Fort Knox. | | >sovereign actions | | Nice euphemism for genocidal, imperialist war. | 0x445442 wrote: | > Nice euphemism for genocidal, imperialist war. | | You're referring to the U.S. right? | KptMarchewa wrote: | >You're referring to the U.S. right? | | You must claim to be very sarcastic! | | No, I'm refering to only country in XXI century that | literally decided to annex other country's territory - | two times. All that while losing war, and deciding to | unleash hell on civilians they claim to be "their kin". | | At least we can cheer our hearts looking at fields | littered with dead russian soldiers and see that there | are countries of the world that won't leave those who | need help alone. | | https://twitter.com/PaulJawin/status/1596033997334872064 | cauefcr wrote: | So the US policy on Latin America is just fine? Embargoes | and CIA financed take-over of many states are all fine? | steve76 wrote: | trasz2 wrote: | [deleted] | ur-whale wrote: | >Do you see a country like Saudi going off the USD? | | Going off, certainly not (why would they?) | | But exchanging their oil for other currencies, absolutely. | | What will be interesting is how long the Sauds will remain in | power once they agree to exchange their oil against other | currencies. | | Historically, all regimes that made that decision were or are | in the process of being taken down either directly by the US or | a combo of their close allies (see: Khadafi, Saddam Hussein, | Vlad Putin, etc...) | pjc50 wrote: | Russia's sanctions were as a result of their invasion of | Ukraine and they'd still be a part of the normal financial | system otherwise. It's nothing to do with petrodollars. | ur-whale wrote: | Apologies, but your reading of the situation is shallow. | | What do you think led Vlad to invade? | | The US has been mounting a proxy war against Russia in | Ukraine for the past 20 years, one they're ready - barring | political upheaval in the US - to fight down to the last | European. | dmitriid wrote: | > What do you think led Vlad to invade? | | Any combination of (in no particular order): | | - paranoia | | - phantom empire pains | | - complete and utter failure to produce anything of note | on ideological level except "we're a great empire that is | surrounded strictly by enemies". | | - waning economy with no means, desire, or knowledge to | maintain or support it | | > The US has been mounting a proxy war against Russia in | Ukraine for the past 20 years | | No on has done more to alienate Russia from its closest | neighbours more than Russia itself. | KptMarchewa wrote: | >- complete and utter failure to produce anything of note | on ideological level except "we're a great empire that is | surrounded strictly by enemies". | | You forgot one thing: WW2 victory cult. | | Americans who claim that their country overtly glorifies | the military would be shocked how insanely militaristic | and jingoistic russia is. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WdGX3-e97s | Isinlor wrote: | Polish and Ukrainian economies were exactly the same size | in 1991 after collapse of the Soviet Union. In 2021 | Polish economy was 3 times bigger than Ukrainian and | almost 2 millions of Ukrainians emigrated to Poland for | work. | | Very clearly Poland done some things right, while Ukraine | did not. | | The one important thing that we have done right appears | to be immediate turning towards West after collapsing | communist regime in 1989. Joining NATO and EU. | | Poland never wanted to be in the Russian sphere of | influence. We have spilled rivers of blood in countless | wars, uprisings and protests against Russian imperialism | in past 300 years. | | Ukraine means "borderland". Historically Ukraine was in a | constant state of wars between Polish-Lithuanian | Commonwealth, Swedish Empire and Russian Empire since | before USA even existed. | | So, historically Ukraine was always split between West | and East. All regions of Ukraine very clearly wanted | independence in 1991. But modern Western Ukraine wanted | to join EU and follow Polish path to prosperity. That's | why Maidan protests started in late 2013. | | Putin invaded Ukraine because he believed in a false | story that Ukrainians wanted to be Little-Russians fed to | him by FSB agents (KGB successor). And in order to keep | Ukrainians from the Western path to prosperity. Ukraine | as prosperous as Poland, meaning more prosperous than | Russia, would threaten his regime and Russian idea of | greatness. | | But Russian speaking Ukrainians sympathetic to Russia | never asked for their whole lives to be upended and to be | bombed by Russia into oblivion. Ukraine is no longer | split. This war is their war of independence, true nation | forming event. Their new found hatred towards Russia and | Russians is enormous and that leaves them with the only | other direction - towards West. | 988747 wrote: | > Ukraine means "borderland". Historically Ukraine was in | a constant state of wars between Polish-Lithuanian | Commonwealth, Swedish Empire and Russian Empire since | before USA even existed. | | Don't forget Turkey. Ukraine was also invaded by Turks | and Tatars many times. | KptMarchewa wrote: | Your analysis is on point, except for one thing: | | >Putin invaded Ukraine because he believed in a false | story that Ukrainians wanted to be Little-Russians fed to | him by FSB agents (KGB successor). | | I don't think he really believed in an real enthusiasm, | but rather passiveness and complacency that characterized | "Great-Russians" under his regime. | | >But Russian speaking Ukrainians sympathetic to Russia | never asked for their whole lives to be upended and to be | bombed by Russia into oblivion. | | That's a giant point not even touched once by trolls that | love to share 2012 Ukraine election results. There's | massive difference between believing that Ukraine needs | to ally with Russia, there are cultural ties and similar | points, and wishing for literal invasion of your country | by foreign empire. | imtringued wrote: | Putin wants to extract oil in Ukraine or at least prevent | Ukraine from extracting it's oil to prevent competition? | pjc50 wrote: | Is there that much unextracted oil there? I thought it | was more concentrated in Azerbaijan. | | (the Azeri/Armenian war gets almost no attention) | hardlianotion wrote: | Much more knowledgeable people than I am suggest that the | reasons include nostalgia for empire, and the acute fear | that near-Russia is not defensible if states like Ukraine | are not controlled up to the nearest natural defensible | barrier. Modern Russia appears to have a mortal fear of | being invaded that is a little perplexing to the modern | European. | KptMarchewa wrote: | >Modern Russia appears to have a mortal fear of being | invaded that is a little perplexing to the modern | European. | | This is a media deflection. They massively blow this up | with Ukraine but literally do nothing when Sweden and | Finland joins. | | What putin really fears, is free, rich and democratic | country in which large parts of population speak russian | language. The masses can't be placated if "the same | people" live better lives than under mafia regime. That's | why russia spend last 30 years undermining free Ukraine | and ensuring their hold on Belarus. | _kbh_ wrote: | > What do you think led Vlad to invade? | | There are vast natural resources in Ukraine which | threatens Russias place as the gas station to the world. | | They also have imperialistic ambitions to try and restore | what they see as the glory days of the USSR. | pjc50 wrote: | Overconfidence and a need for an external enemy? | Satanism? | https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/nato- | nazi... | | > proxy war against Russia in Ukraine | | To a certain extent this is true, but the Ukranians have | been very keen on it as they've benefited from not being | a puppet state run by a corrupt president who built | himself a huge palace. And Russia has no right to be "in" | Ukraine in the first place. | rich_sasha wrote: | I think this take is somewhat over-reacting. I'm pretty sure | you'll find that the price they agreed is really in USD, and | only the medium of exchange is gold (even if the paperwork or | agreement doesn't even reference USD). So really they are | paying X USD's worth of gold - with both oil and gold price | being fixed in USD somewhere abroad. USD is so incredibly | ubiquitous, it won't easily go away. | | Reserves are a little different, but even then, whenever | something bad happens, the dollar strengthens as investors | flock to it. When the 2008 crisis happened (and it was US- | centric!) US and the dollar were still the safe haven everyone | escaped to. Not the Rouble, not the Yuan, not so much EUR or | CHF or, from memory, gold. | | So we'll see people avoid the USD as a medium of exchange, | maybe, even if the prices are fixed on USD-denominated prices. | But also remember, gold is not a great medium of exchange. Will | Ghana ship physical gold around the world (risky and | expensive)? Or will they sign a piece of paper saying "gold | held by in a safe by someone else and owned by me is now owned | by someone else" - in which case there is similar counterparty | risk, except perhaps not against the US government. But if you | think the US is an evil octopus with long tentacles, surely | they could get their hands on this gold. Where will this haven | safe from US interference be? | | If anything, I can more easily believe an alternative economy | based on crypto. It's actually happening and working well, for | all sorts of shady or illicit activity. | kibwen wrote: | _> Or will they sign a piece of paper saying "gold held by | in a safe by someone else and owned by me is now owned by | someone else" - in which case there is similar counterparty | risk, except perhaps not against the US government._ | | The US holds a quarter of all the known gold reserves in the | world, and has more gold than the next three countries | combined, so there's a decent chance that Ghana's gold is | already in the US. | bobthepanda wrote: | EUR is still not a great managed currency. The Euro crisis | could, technically, happen again. | | RUB backing economy is pretty much one major export. | | JPY makes American debt look chaste in comparison | | CHF does not want the job, primarily because its use as a | basket currency already makes it too strong | | CNY does not want the job, and their past history of capital | controls make America look chaste | UltraViolence wrote: | Saudi Arabia isn't going off the USD. That would seriously | undermine their relation with the U.S. and could even have them | branded an antagonistic nation. | | The dominance of the USD is EXTREMELY important to the U.S. and | I can assure you that Washington is even willing to wage war | over it. | | But I believe the ball has already started rolling with Bitcoin | and Russia's demand for payment in Rubles. | pirate787 wrote: | LOL Bitcoin is a joke, its down 65% against the dollar this | year | luciusdomitius wrote: | And it is going to fall more after the rug pull about to | happen. Still, even in its worst, it is doing well against | TRL, ARP, etc. And those are currencies used by many tens | of millions. | UltraViolence wrote: | FTX's collapse has left its mark, but this will only be | temporary. | | Bitcoin is already demonstrating its usefulness by helping | countries evade economic sanctions. There are a truckload | of nations who're fed up with the West's financial | dominance and are actively seeking alternatives. | luciusdomitius wrote: | S. Arabia was already labeled a pariah nation by the senile | old man. Just before they refused to increase production. So, | no leverage there. | UltraViolence wrote: | Ol' Joe can't completely pull his hands off Saudi Arabia. | Same with Turkiye. | | Both are too important to the strategic and economic well- | being of the U.S. to cut loose. | dehrmann wrote: | > More and more countries questioning why they need to base | their foreign transaction on the US Dollar. | | For spot transactions, it doesn't really matter beyond giving | the buyer and seller a common language to negotiate in. For | contracts sometime in the future, if you're Argentina, no one | wants to bet on where the Peso will be in 6 months. | spaceman_2020 wrote: | If you look at the actual numbers, you'll find that USD | dominance is still unchallenged. | | BUT, there is definitely way more chatter about alternative | payment options, including from well-placed government sources | and central banks in important non-west allied countries. | | It's now a matter of "when", not "if" when an alternative | currency pops up, maybe a BRICS currency. | UltraViolence wrote: | I believe the war in Ukraine has permanently damaged the | USD's dominance in the medium to long term. | | The use of a supposedly neutral financial network (SWIFT) as | a sanction weapon will make other nations who aren't on good | terms with the U.S. and the West (and not just the "usual | suspects" but many nations in Africa and South America too) | seeking alternatives. | | As previously mentioned, Bitcoin is a viable alternative. But | there may be others. In any case I see nations ganging up to | create an alternative to the SWIFT network, potentially | undermining its usefulness. | ben_w wrote: | I'm only at the level of guessing for topics like this, but my | guess is that a chain reaction is more likely to see a switch | from USD to Renminbi than a switch to gold (or Euros). | | China because of the potential assuming similar GDP/capita as | the current USA. | | Not soon because I expect as a prerequisite for change being | the new winner's GDP to be dominant rather than just joint top | 3 in a ranking system that changes their ordering depending on | what you value most. | | Not gold because the justifications given for why we all | stopped using the gold standard in the fist place, still seem | to apply. | matthewdgreen wrote: | Wouldn't a switch to Renminbi as a global reserve currency be | fundamentally incompatible with China's currency control | regime? This has always been the explanation I've been given | for why such a switchover is improbable. | ben_w wrote: | Could be; I don't even understand British economic | policies, despite my nationality, Chinese economic policies | are completely outside my domain of knowledge. | Tarq0n wrote: | There's also a lot less in circulation. The US Dollar has | by far the largest volume out of any currency, which helps | other central banks manage their holdings. This is | something that holds back for instance the euro to be used | for reserve banking. | tcbawo wrote: | Do you think GDP is the critical factor for determining a | global reserve currency? IMO, respect for property ownership | rights, legal/judicial recourse, ubiquity of US banks, and | political stability are large contributing factors that few | other countries can compete with. China has a pretty | checkered past regarding ownership rights for citizens who | are critical of its leadership. | [deleted] | 988747 wrote: | Property rights and such are secondary. The primary issue | is: who has the power? Right now the answer to that | question is "US", but since China is catching up on GDP, | and, unlike US, actually manufactures things. If China | decides that they want payments for all the goods that they | export to be in RMB then there's nothing the rest of the | world can do about it, except stop all the imports from | China (which would take decades, because they have to learn | to manufacture all those goods themselves). Once most of | your imports come from China instead of the US it does make | sense to use Chinese currency as the reserve currency, | since you are going to need a lot of RMB to pay for your | imports anyway. | matthewdgreen wrote: | Saudi Arabia (to pick a major oil exporter) imports about | 20% of its goods from China. But it also imports vastly | more from regional partners and the US and Europe, not to | mention that it depends on the US to secure all of its | oil exports to China across thousands of miles of | vulnerable ocean routes. | ethbr0 wrote: | China can't tank imports until they finish pivoting to | their own internal, consumptive middle class. And | probably not even then. | | The plan the international community hoped for is | actually somewhat working, the timeline for China's giant | population to metabolize it was just wrong. | | Large Chinese middle class = power = political risk to | disrupting the economy = incentive not to rock the | international trade boat's status quo. | | The CCP is already seeing with the anger over zero-COVID | that {middle class life} >> {good of the Party} for most | of the population. | | Unfortunately, China probably also learned from the USSR | that the entire charade only collapses when you blink and | refrain from using the military to crush civilian | dissent. Which doesn't bode well for Chinese citizens... | FpUser wrote: | >"Unfortunately, China probably also learned from the | USSR that the entire charade only collapses when you | blink and refrain from using the military to crush | civilian dissent." | | Baloney. USSR did not crush because of "civilian | dissent". All the changes were driven from the top. | ethbr0 wrote: | The Berlin Wall fell because the East German authorities | and the USSR declined to shoot civilians. | | And the fact that order wasn't given was mostly due to | bureaucratic ineptitude and delay, rather than intent. ht | tps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Berlin_Wall#Cro | w... | | It could have easily been Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia | 1968, Georgia 1989 instead. | | Progress trends towards freedom, but it can walk over a | lot of corpses on its way there. :( | FpUser wrote: | Berlin Wall did not cause the collapse of the USSR, it | was one of the results of generally declining empire and | change of it policies that again came from the top. Gorby | and Reagan had decided to be "friends" | ben_w wrote: | I suspect it's a prerequisite, though perhaps not the only | one. | | I also suspect that political stability is more likely to | favour China than the USA over the next few decades -- it | is very human for success to be followed by the assumption | of indefatigability and that to be followed by fighting | over who leads the nation, rather than continuing to focus | on what actually made a nation dominant and how to keep it | that way. The UK lost its literal empire that way; the | Soviet Union took 50 years to go from agrarian to space, | but by the end they had become at least as out of touch | with their own people as the last Tsar had been; I think | the US may lose its metaphorical empire similarly to the | UK's actual empire, though the group deciding to call | itself "The Tea Party" at least implies the possibility of | it failing, with analogy to the USSR, in the same way it | was formed. | tcbawo wrote: | The US may have backslid a bit, but it still leads the | world in property ownership rights and fairness of the | legal system. When a foreign corporation takes a domestic | corporation to court, which jurisdiction will they get | the fairest shake? What happens to billionaires when they | speak critically of the Chinese government? Despite | claims to the contrary, freedom of speech and rights of | the property ownership are still vigilantly protected in | the US. | ben_w wrote: | Certainly; this is a hypothetical about a future where | both China improves and the USA continues downhill. But | even then, don't image a static world, imagine the | difference (on the world stage, not in absolute terms) | between the UK in 1922 and 1950, and assume the USA might | fall proportionally as far by 2050. Or the growth of the | Soviet Union in the same period, and apply that to China | by 2050. | KptMarchewa wrote: | >the Soviet Union took 50 years to go from agrarian to | space | | That's a naive view of russia. Up to this day, one of the | main tasks of russian army - as previously soviet - is | potato harvest. | ben_w wrote: | I can certainly believe they're like that today, given | how inept they obviously are in every aspect of the | Ukraine war. So much so, I will take that at face value | without even bothering to google it even though it | would've seemed like a surprising and unbelievable claim | this time last year. | | That doesn't mean they didn't go to space, nor does it | mean they didn't industrialise, nor does it mean they | weren't a significant word power and viable threat to the | USA during the Cold War. | KptMarchewa wrote: | Agreed. It's also important to look at context of all of | those achievements. | | For example, industrialization was greatly driven by | foreign engineers and companies. | | Like, one of the most important figures in pre-WW2 | industrialization. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Kahn_(architect) | | That continued after WW2. Russia was dependant on western | trucks, a lot of which they gained via Land-Lease. So, | they literally bought truck factory from the western | companies - Kamaz - that they obviously branded as their | great achievement. | | Production: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FVI8MeOWAAEBhMB?f | ormat=jpg&name=... | | Receipts: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FVI8lAGWUAA37eD?for | mat=jpg&name=... https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FVI8l9eXwAEv | MKM?format=jpg&name=... | nivenkos wrote: | This was the same for every industrialising country save | Great Britain and a handful of others though. | trasz2 wrote: | nirimda wrote: | The UK lost its literal empire because of the costs of | two wars that devastated the continent - not domestic | politics. On the other hand, the PRC is turning back on | itself. It has been unable to produce a successor to Xi - | making it very hard to change direction. Under Xi, it has | actively cultivated hostility against itself and only | manages to exercise influence others through force. It | also has much less stable demographics. It is not | reasonable to expect China to collapse and it would be | fearful if they did, but they are likely to have a much | less stable period ahead as they come to terms with their | situation. | | As for the US, they're not alone in this but they are now | in a situation where younger voters with a longer time | horizon are able to win majorities against older voters | with shorter time horizons. This means they're entering | into a period of creativity. It is not clear what the | outcome will be. But it is clear that we cannot take for | granted that pursuit of an unreformed ideology will | distract them from the compromise and teamwork that | brought them to strength. | | In both cases, I think you're extrapolating from recent | politics. But both countries are in different turns of | the demographic wheel, and have different ways of dealing | with that. Democracy also tends to make turmoil more | obvious to external observers, so it's easy to | accidentally compare apples to oranges when you're | looking at a democracy and an autocracy. | ben_w wrote: | > The UK lost its literal empire because of the costs of | two wars that devastated the continent - not domestic | politics. | | That's the story the British like to tell themselves. | | I don't think it fits the counterexample that Germany was | able to rebuild itself enough after the first to be a | world-scale threat by the second (and might have won the | second in the alternative timeline where they had not | been so anti-communist to attempt to conquer the USSR | before the UK, and possibly also in the hypothetical | alternative timeline if they had not been anti-Semitic -- | even before all the horrors of Holocaust became known, | they were bad enough to make a significant number of | Jewish scientists run away, in particular the ones went | to the USA and helped with the Manhattan Project); and | again after WW2 and being divided by the Allies, that | Germany went from having their industrial base punitively | dismantled in 1949 to The Times referring to the its | reconstruction as a _Wirtschaftswunder_ by 1959. (Yes I | do know they got help, but it's important to also know | why the UK didn't get that help, and I think part of that | is the USA while part is internal domestic UK politics). | | It also doesn't fit that the observation that empire, | which was worldwide, had been bringing riches to the UK | before the war. One thing that _might_ have changed the | cost /benefit ratios was all the locals finally getting | their hands on sufficient firearms to make it expensive | to suppress independence movements. Given what else the | British government was busy doing with local industrial | policy at that point, and the honours granted to those | directly involved in war crimes during the Mau Mau | uprising, I don't think they were that self-aware. (Could | also be that the USA was putting pressure on the old | powers to drop their imperialism, but I don't feel | confident about the dynamic there given British cultural | attitudes to the USA vary from it being "one of us, even | if they don't realise it" (no, I don't get it either, but | I've seen it) to "if they say jump, we ask how high"). | | It also doesn't fit that the Commonwealth's GDP is now | about $11 trillion, about 3 times the UK itself; although | I would regard the end of Imperialism as a morally good | thing and correct all by itself, I don't think "money" is | a reasonable justification for _giving up_ on that | potential. Morally, sure. Politically, it is "gave up an | empire to gain a continent... hang on, why isn't the | continent doing what we say? That must mean _they_ are | dictating to _us_!" | [deleted] | ethbr0 wrote: | China might be able to _force_ a switch to the Renminbi | simply by virtue of their GDP. First as a medium of exchange | (which they 're doing), then as a reserve currency. | | But having people _willingly_ adopt it? | | If people are unsatisfied with the USD in specific ways, how | would those specific ways be better using the RMB? | | It'd be pretty shortsighted to complain about US financial | manipulation or use of currency to further political goals... | and then jump in mainland China's pool! | edwnj wrote: | As for what happens next: de-globalisation | | I predict we'll see blocks forming up again, something like: - | West (US+EU) - East (China+Russia) - India (India, Sri Lanka, | Himalayan States, South China states) - Middle (Middle | East+North Africa) - Latam (Central + South American States) | | One wild card IMO would be the rise of the Indian sphere of | influence. I'll leave some room for India's remarkable ability | to snatch defeat form the jaws of victory. If they don't f this | up, they have UUUGE tailwinds going for them. | | Middle east is overrated IMO, its like an oasis with oil | instead of water. When the oil money runs out, not gonna be fun | any more. | | Latam is probs the biggest wildcard, even bigger than India. | They don't need a lot of things to be right to wildly | outperform as a block. Just like the US, they are protected by | two oceans so they can choose to not involve themselves in | stuff. | | Africa is highly overrated IMO, the entire continent is cursed | in multiple ways. If u compare africa to another post colonial | continent like Latam, africa is in a place where they need to | get so many things right to just survive, let alone to catch | up. | dmitriid wrote: | > East (China+Russia) | | People that keep bunching Russia with China are deluding | themselves that Russia is anywhere on China's radar except as | a source of cheap resources (gas, oil, wood) | edwnj wrote: | Russia is a UUUUGE strategic geopolitical ally for China. | | In a de-globilised world split into spheres of influence, | Russia would be a foothold into Europe. | | Cheap resources cant be discounted, China has duck all for | resources. It imports everything (raw nat resources) and | its current source Australia is not an ally. | KptMarchewa wrote: | China has other sources for any of the raw materials, | russia has no other markets. | | If anything happens, it will be a massive extortion like | Iran-China deal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80 | %93China_25-year_Coo... | | Current Urals price is profitable but way below needed to | maintain blown up russian budget by war effort. China | likes this. | thisiscorrect wrote: | I agree with the general premise of your comment, that this | is a small sign of the deglobalization which is _already_ | under way. | | But, what are the UUUGE tailwinds benefiting India? India, | even more so than China, seems likely to "get old before it | gets rich." Its TFR is already below replacement and falling | rapidly. | KptMarchewa wrote: | China's official TFR figures are massively engineered: | https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/chinese- | populat... | | India ones are still over replaceability. | thisiscorrect wrote: | https://www.google.com/search?q=india+total+fertility+rat | e tells me India's is 2.18, below the modern replacement | TFR rate of 2.3 [1]. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate#Re | placeme... | KptMarchewa wrote: | India child mortality rate is low enough that it's closer | to developed countries rate of 2.1, rather than global | rate which you cite. | dirtyid wrote: | With respect to point of original argument: | | >get old before it gets rich | | If PRC's official population is as low as Yi thinks, then | her per capita GDP is already "secretly" high income at | ~14000 USD. She would technically already have gotten | rich before old. CCP has incentive to overreport | population / underreport GDP to keep "developing" country | status. | | >India ones are still over replaceability | | Indian overall TFR this year is ~2.0, but more important | to break down Indian TFR by state, which will reveal all | the high HDI/developmed/educated regions are ~1.6 and | trending down, while the underdeveloped and poorly | educated regions are still >2. The TLDR is India's | demographic divident in her high potential regions is | basically over, while low potential regions are | generating excess bodies that will have little | opportunity develop. Recipe for disaster in democracy, | and hence: | | > India, even more so than China, seems likely to "get | old before it gets rich." | | Of course India is going to grow, by a lot, but much of | her high potential demographic divident is already tapped | out while stuck in low middle income unless the system | get it's shit together. | edwnj wrote: | I strongly disagree with on demographics, it looks really | good for most of the century. Everything including TFR, | young population, working population and even elderly | populations looks REALLY good. Especially relative to | China. | | Demographics aside, India is a perfect replacement for | China in high tech manufacturing. Stability is a huge | factor here giving India a massive edge compared to south | east asian alternatives. | | On top of that, you have young highly skilled & literate | workforce. A largely discounted wealthy diaspora investing | back into the motherland. Huge pool of software talent. | | IMO it makes for a huge Shenzhen like moment for India. | Again, I leave a massive amount of room for India to duck | this up but it is India's opportunity to fuck up. The winds | have shifted heavily in their favour. | simple-thoughts wrote: | For people saying that this is a sign of the dollar dominance | ending consider this. | | Gold is valued in dollars. Oil is valued in dollars. Any gold for | oil exchange will be decided by the going dollar rate of each. | Counter parties and middlemen assisting this trade will be | hedging their positions with dollar settled derivatives traded on | deep and liquid dollar markets. | chewz wrote: | Exactly... People confuse eurodollar market with dollars... | | What Ghana is doing is a symptom of global liquidity crisis not | a dollar crisis... Ghana cannot print dollars... It is short | dollars and would rather have more then less of dollars. So | this situation makes dollar more wanted not less. | | Michaell Howell is an expert on Global Liquidity and does good | job at explaing it. | | https://hiddenforces.io/podcasts/global-liquidity-matters-no... | hmate9 wrote: | Gold isn't valued in dollars. You can sell gold for any | currency. | | Oil is primarily transacted with dollars because it's the | worlds reserve currency. But if that were to change to | whatever, you can still sell your oil and gold for whatever the | new dominant currency is. Meanwhile your dollar is (presumably | in this case) worth way less in terms of buying power than when | you first bought it. | simple-thoughts wrote: | You can always barter anything for anything else, but how do | you decide the rate to barter at? It's determined by the rate | for the most liquid markets for the two sides, because the | price of an asset in the most liquid market is the price all | other markets will follow. There just aren't gold based | markets that are even remotely comparable to usd ones, so the | ratio of gold to oil is set by their respective rates in usd. | | To see an actual switch from usd to gold for valuing oil, | you'd need to see the market liquidity migrate from usd/oil | pairs to gold/oil pairs. Ghana making a political statement | isn't that. | themihai wrote: | >> Gold is valued in dollars. Oil is valued in dollars. | | If a long term contract is signed it protects you from dollar's | inflation/volatility as the contract used gold as currency. I | think this is important as tomorrow Fed's decision is no longer | that important for your energy costs. | | The more important part is that if enough contracts are signed | in gold(highly unlikely given U.S's oil exports) then the | dollar is no longer relevant to the oil price. | thaumasiotes wrote: | > I think this is important as tomorrow Fed's decision is no | longer that important for your energy costs. | | The Fed decision wasn't important to energy costs anyway, | though. Oil is priced in dollars, but the price changes | minute-to-minute. Whatever the Fed decides about the value of | a dollar, the oil price will reflect that. | | If you're involved in a _long-term contract_ involving the | exchange of oil for dollars, then the Fed 's decision can | have a big impact on you. But that's true of all long-term | contracts involving dollars; there's nothing special about | the other side of the contract being oil. | themihai wrote: | >> The Fed decision wasn't important to energy costs | anyway, though. | | Of course it was. Rate hiking makes the dollar more | expensive for anyone buying dollars(to pay for the oil). | Were they dealing with gold they would not have this issue. | Not to mention if the buyer is a gold producer. | thaumasiotes wrote: | So what? Rates go up, dollars get more valuable, it's | more expensive to buy dollars than it used to be, _and | each dollar buys more oil than before_. | themihai wrote: | But only one entity prints dollars so that's the | catch/unfair advantage of the U.S. | simple-thoughts wrote: | Most dollars are created by offshore banks and are not backed | by deposits at the federal reserve. The federal reserve only | indirectly affects the value of dollars through manipulating | inflation expectations. If people think the fed is easing, | they buy assets which pumps the collateral of offshore banks | which then have larger balance sheet capacity to issue new | dollars backed by that collateral. | | So even if you are signing contracts in gold/oil pairs, | effects of fed decisions can impact your trade in ways that | you are protected from in usd/oil pairs as gold is usually | viewed as a safety asset - so when animal spirits take off | due to fed statements gold can go down while oil takes off. | This has in fact happened several times over the last | decades. | thisiscorrect wrote: | It's obviously possible to buy gold in non-USD currencies. So I | think the gist of your comment applies to the dominance the US | has over oil markets. So while the "petrodollar" era is still | ongoing but its day seem numbered, e.g. by pushing Russia to | seek other export markets besides the West, by the increasingly | cool perception of the US by OPEC nations [1], etc. | | [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2022/10/05/opec- | thumbs-... | simple-thoughts wrote: | Not just oil markets- usd dominates gold markets as well. | Russia will be selling oil to other countries at a "discount" | but to what? The price of oil in usd which is why some | counterparties consider the trade. If usd was losing | dominance, countries would be offering a premium to purchase | oil for something other than usd. | rsync wrote: | "For people saying that this is a sign of the dollar dominance | ending consider this ..." | | I think you are mistaken. | | The technical fungibility of dollars/gold/oil is irrelevant. | | The requirement to sell other assets to buy dollars in order to | settle oil is not a minor detail - _it 's the whole point_ ... | | ... and it would, indeed, be a sign of an erosion of US | currency and trade dominance ... which is why it's not going to | happen. | | Ghana will either not go through with this plan or they will | proceed and pay an enormous economic and political price ... | _or worse_. | happyjack wrote: | You're indeed 100% right. I think a lot of HN programmer bros | miss this point ... that being forced to settle in dollars is | not a formality ... it's the whole point! | GoOnThenDoTell wrote: | Im curious about the mechanics of how this helps, could they not | sell the gold for dollars to buy the oil? | 3pt14159 wrote: | All the mechanics in the world won't help you if the | fundamentals are broken. | | At some point, when push comes to shove, someone has to take | delivery of something. This comes down to a matter of | efficiency and faith. Who do you have more faith in? A random | bank claiming to having a certain amount of gold on deposit? | Your own central bank taking in tons of gold for delivery of a | good? | | This is silliness. If the USD is inflating too much (or if you | perceive American sanctions as too onerous) then use a | different currency like the Swiss Franc or the Euro. | | None of this really matters. What matters is international | settlements, agreements, and force. If you're on the wrong side | of the WTO your economy is cooked anyway. Besides, if Ghana | were some stalwart of anti-corruption then this may mean | something, but it isn't. It's middle of the pack. Well behind | Canada, Europe, Japan, and The United States; all countries or | blocks that are perfectly fine selling and buying in USD. | 4pkjai wrote: | I think the reason they want to avoid the US dollar is so that | they do not need to obey US sanctions. | | From what I understand, if you send US dollars around the | world, they need to go through a US bank. All US banks must | obey US government sanctions. | fuzzfactor wrote: | Right now dollars are skyrocketing in value compared to their | own currency. | | For them dollars earn much more being held rather than being | invested in most other things within reach. | | They can dig up more gold from their own mines which they're | always doing anyway regardless of its prevailing price. | pjc50 wrote: | Ghana are not subject to sanctions? | djbebs wrote: | Right now. Can you guarantee that will always be the case | we'll into the future? | elzbardico wrote: | They may want to buy things like fertilizers or wheat from | a sanctioned entity, Russia coming to mind. | fmajid wrote: | They don't want to avoid the dollar, far from it, they want | to keep the few dollars they still have and pay with | something else instead. | | Now, if I were the Chinese with an overabundance of dollars | (or worse, US Treasury bonds), I'd be trying to convert them | into something else ASAP. They tried to buy companies, | agricultural land and other things with intrinsic value, but | were blocked by CFIUS and the EU is setting up its | equivalent. | ur-whale wrote: | At some point in their history, the US unilaterally decided | that any transaction occuring in dollars in any parts of the | world was subject to US law. | | In other words, they suddenly had granted themselves legitimacy | to enforce US law anywhere on the planet as long as a single | dollar changed hands. | | As the US perceives itself as an empire, it makes complete | sense from their POV. | | But mayyybeeee, if you're in Ghana, you still cherish delusions | of being a sovereign nation ... | pjc50 wrote: | This. People seem very exercised about using the dollar | specifically to buy oil, but .. currencies are fungible? You | can trade them on international markets? Also, where does the | gold come from? Is it just their central bank reserve? | | No, it seems that Ghana is experiencing the classic forex | problem of not being able to export enough valuable production | in order to afford its imports, and it's very hard to reduce | imports of fuel without drastic drops in either lifestyle or | production capacity. And if you can't afford fuel to produce | exports, then you have a death spiral. | squaresmile wrote: | Yeah, it's pretty disappointing that most comments focus on | the ideological aspect and celebrate the move while the | picture is pretty bleak for Ghana. | | Unfortunately, this story is not unique to Ghana and if the | situation does not improve, I fear for how next year will | look. | ksidudwbw wrote: | Can always bring in investors | UltraViolence wrote: | We'll see the dominance of the USD erode in the next three | decades is my prediction. | | Look at how successful Putin was in demanding payment for Russian | oil in Rubles. It has propped up the Ruble enormously and its | predicted collapse hasn't occurred. In fact it has rallied. | | I assure you that other nations have taken note and will take | similar steps in the future. Other commodities may well be priced | in local currencies of the producing nations. Think gold, | diamond, gas, oil, timber, wheat. | nirimda wrote: | Most countries and business want to do something with their | earnings. If you get paid in rubles for your oil, then you can | only buy things denominated in rubles. If your _general_ trade | is collapsing, this isn 't such a bad thing - you need to make | an increasing proportion of your consumption. But if you retain | an economy that wants to do general trade, you will probably | want something other countries accept. | | So although it is possible that "we'll see the dominance of the | USD erode in the next three decades", it is much less likely | that "commodities [in general would] be priced in local | currencies of the producing nations [following the example of | Putin's Russia]". The problem with your prediction though is | that it's boring - it's too easy to be true as phrased. For | instance, if we see a new cold war divide into a China-focused | world and a US-focused world, then the growth of whatever | currency the China-focused world uses will necessarily result | in decreased USD dominance. Or if not China, then India. Or who | knows who. Or maybe the US will descend into civil war and | someone else will pick up the mantle of world hegemon. Or the | US will amicably divorce, and the Floridollar will dominate | international trades. | | So it's more likely that you'll be right for the wrong reason, | than that you'll be right for the reasoning established in your | post. | UltraViolence wrote: | AFAIK you can still exchange Rubles for USD or EUR, so buying | stuff shouldn't be too much trouble. | | The problem Russia has is that it can't buy anything from the | West no matter how much money it's willing to pay because of | trade sanctions. | | The sanctions will eventually be lifted since Russia will | almost certainly demand this for stopping the war. | KptMarchewa wrote: | The "prop up the ruble" effect was negative to russia. It | happened because export to russia totally stalled. So, russia | still exported oil and gas, but could not buy anything for | earned currency. For example, in August German export to russia | dropped 45.8%, while imports dropped only 6.7% - and that only | due to gas price increase. Now they import 0 gas. | | >I assure you that other nations have taken note and will take | similar steps in the future. | | Why would any country do that if they don't plan similar | genocidal war? | jacooper wrote: | > Why would any country do that if they don't plan similar | genocidal war? | | Because not everybody likes to be controlled by the US? | oj2828 wrote: | Russia had to raise interest rates to 20% to achieve the recent | appreciation. Russia is giving up economic growth for the | foreseeable future to prop up its currency. I doubt many | countries are eyeing a similar move | somenameforme wrote: | They raised them to 20% for one month in the face of a | nuclear economic strike. Their rates are down to 7.5% which | are close to nominal for them. Remaining effects are a 3% GDP | decline and a 12% inflation rate trending downward from a | peak of 18% following the attack. | | The overall impact seems to be fading to zero relatively | quickly, excepting a much stronger ruble. Future growth | numbers will be interesting to follow. Much could shift | radically one way or the other depending on oil prices, but | the US seems to have a declining level of influence with | OPEC+. | The_Colonel wrote: | > Remaining effects are a 3% GDP decline | | It's 3.9% (which rounds up to 4%, not to 3%) this year and | 5.6% next year. | | This forecast is based on figures kindly provided by | Russian authorities, which in times of war have strong | incentives to be creative. | somenameforme wrote: | The Russian central bank expects a rate of 3-3.5%, the | Ministry of Economic Development expects a decline of | 2.9%. [1] Your numbers may be dated, as the expected | figures keep improving. Some time back they were | expecting double digit declines. | | [1] - https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/gdp-growth- | annual | The_Colonel wrote: | The 3.9%, 5.6% decline comes from OECD's November report, | so hardly outdated. | | I don't think there's much reason to trust Russian | Central Bank which has strong incentives (read: orders) | to enhance the numbers. | | https://www.oecd.org/economic-outlook/november-2022/ | RadixDLT wrote: | good thing bush is not president this time | selimnairb wrote: | Cue US invasion of Ghana... | andsoitis wrote: | Why do you suppose the US would want to do that? | selimnairb wrote: | Why did we invade Libya? | shyn3 wrote: | Libya moved away from the USD and got destroyed. Ghadaffi | wanted the African countries to unite and get away from the | standard. The American imperialists shut that down fast. | freddealmeida wrote: | It won't happen. | ur-whale wrote: | The hegemony of the dollar as a reserve currency is finally | coming to an end, and while many will disagree with my opinion, I | believe it's a very good thing for the world. | | The US has been allowed by the rest of the world to use the | dollar as a weapon since the end of WWII, specifically using it | to impose unilateral economic sanctions on anyone they don't | like, thereby flouting or downright ignoring other countries | sovereignty in the process. | | The have also used the privileged status of the dollar to gain | systematic, unfair and generally undeserved economic advantage in | international markets. | | They have also used this advantage to create a completely | unsustainable amount of debt which the US will never be able to | repay now that the dollar is becoming just another currency. | | Picasso was famous for writing checks, knowing fully well that | they would never get cashed out because, bearing his signature, | there was an intrinsic demand for them and the thing would be | kept as is by the owner. | | US dollars are very similar to Picasso's checks in the sense that | foreign country all keep large amounts of US currency reserve and | debt instrument, but they never "cash them out" (exchange them | for US-based hard assets such as land and businesses). | | The world has allowed this to happen for near 70-ish years | because the for the longest time, the US was perceived by a large | part of the world as a force for good. | | That ship has sailed though, and in 2022 it's getting pretty hard | to find folks outside of the US that view it as a force for good | anymore (or just don't downright hate their guts with a passion). | | To be a useful tool, a currency should be, among other things: | a) managed in a sane manner (as in: the amount issued should be | on a fixed schedule, as per Milton Friedman) b) not | used to tilt the playing field c) essentially | politically neutral, and in particular managed by an entity not | in any way controllable by the government. | | The US dollar doesn't meet any of these criteria, and the chicken | are now coming home to roost and the dollar will slowly lose it's | privileged status among world currencies, slowly being replaced | by a bunch of other. | | Good riddance. | creakingstairs wrote: | > The hegemony of the dollar as a reserve currency is finally | coming to an end, and while many will disagree with my opinion, | I believe it's a very good thing for the world. | | Yeah ideally, I agree that some competition might be good to | keep US in check. Chinese Yuan seems most likely at this point. | | But I think the world would be in a "worse" place when the | break happens. Purely due to geopolitical instability and all | the second order effects that is bound to happen when US | hegemony ends. | dragonelite wrote: | Wondering what will replace it, maybe the Brics coin a basket | of currencies and commodities. A bit like Keynes Bancor concept | if i'm not mistaken time will tell what sort of currencies the | Russians and Chinese will introduce for BRICS, SCO and BRI | nations. | ur-whale wrote: | The Chinese Renminbi (Yuan) is a good candidate to quickly | get on par with the USD. | | If they manage it properly that is, as in: not print | mountains of it, and not using it to enforce their political | aims. | | They're currently actively busy making the Renminbi reserve | and default trading currency in much of Asia. | | And, as a last resort, there's always Bitcoin and gold, | although, as Ghana will discover (unless they make the | mistake of using a 3rd-party custodian) gold is very tricky | to move about. | pjc50 wrote: | > not using it to enforce their political aims. | | Ah yes, the CCP, famously known for not enforcing political | aims. | meowfly wrote: | RMB is a terrible candidate for a reserve currency. If you | are concerned about the US meddling with their currency, | you will not pick a historically manipulated currency like | the RMB. Moreover, in China transactions over 8k USD have | to be reported and there is a 50k USD currency exchange | limit. The governments managing of outflows hardly gives | confidence that the currency is one people want to hold. | dragonelite wrote: | Asia does seem to move more and more into the renminbi | sphere. It would makes sense if China starts exporting more | RMB over the next couple of years to facilitate trade in | the region and get the USD financial hooks out of the | region. For now i'm mostly waiting on South china sea code | of conduct being finalised. Seems Vietnam is now willing to | cooperate with China on their South China sea issues and | resources/border disputes. | | You also have Xi next month meeting Arab leaders in Saudi | Arabia, a lot of people are expecting a PetroYuan | announcement or at the very least the foundation of such an | agreement. I think after those two events are handled and | closed, China should be in an excellent position to become | Asia's major energy hub. They can get Russian, Qatari, | Central Asian stans and Saudi energy products without | having to use Western financial institutions or services. I | think the Russian and Arab leaders want a bigger share of | the Chinese bonds and financial markets so they can grow | their RMB reserves like they are already doing with their | dollars. | | Ghana going with gold for energy imports seems smart for | now but yeah moving gold isn't easy, also verifying the | gold is also not easy. That's why i think BRICS+, SCO and | BRI nations will create a block chain with a digital | currency(Central Banks digital Currency) backed by a basket | of currencies and commodities to facilitate import and | export and government to government financial transactions. | peter-m80 wrote: | Honest question: Can someone explain me why using gold instead of | dollars to buy oil isn't the same as sell gold for dollars and | use those dollars to buy oil? | simple-thoughts wrote: | Only half of the story is quoted here. The other half is Ghana | is forcing gold refiners to sell 20% to the Ghanan central bank | in "cedis at spot prices with no discounts"[1]. So they are | minting cedis to buy gold, then trade that gold for oil instead | of dollars. If the trade was instead to sell for dollars, it's | more politically obvious that the policy is a tax on gold | miners and refiners. | | [1] https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/ghana-orders- | min... | Ekaros wrote: | For two parties to transact in dollars they need either to | physically hold large amounts of dollars. Or have access to | some shared ledger that is accounting system where transactions | can happen. | | Say A, B, C account. A sells gold and get dollars from account | B to account A. And now they can buy oil from owner of account | C. | | But who owns and runs these accounts or the transactions | between them? One option is SWIFT system. Which Russia got | excluded in some capacity from. As such it is clear that system | cannot be trusted. Value of dollars there are very unlikely to | be good for long term. And same applies to any accounts in | banks in western influence sphere. | | Thus directly transacting is better option in long run. For any | country that wants to keep their economy stable. | lvl102 wrote: | Ekaros wrote: | No. I'm not thanks for ad-hominem though. | Sargos wrote: | Putting your entire economy at risk of being turned off | advisory due to unknown future political disputes is a risk | to the sovereignty of nearly every country in the world. | Many countries are now looking for alternatives after the | neutrality of swift/the dollar was eliminated. | giaour wrote: | > One option is SWIFT system. Which Russia got excluded in | some capacity from. As such it is clear that system cannot be | trusted. | | That is quite a leap. Russia was also excluded from the NY | stock exchange due to the ongoing sanctions; does that mean | we can no longer trust stocks bought and sold there? | 988747 wrote: | Yes, it does at least for those of us who are not US | citizens. You can never be sure that one day the US won't | sanction your home country in the same way, for some weird | reason. Of course for some countries the risk is greater | than for others, but still, it's a good reason to avoid US | financial markets. | giaour wrote: | All financial markets participate in sanctions, so taking | this absolute stance would limit the negotiable | instruments available to you to briefcases full of gold | or cryptocurrency. | pessimizer wrote: | > All financial markets participate in sanctions | | You're using the law of averages. Not all financial | markets participate in the same sanctions to the same | extent at the same time, which means that the decision | about where to invest can be important. | | > taking this absolute stance | | You're the one characterizing this as an absolute stance, | rather than a practical stance related to the current | condition of the markets of the most powerful country | that demands the most sanctions. | yxhuvud wrote: | Because of changes of the relative values between gold, dollars | and oil over time has implications. If they have a more | reliable source of gold than of dollars then it may make sense | from their point of view. It is of course up to the oil | producers if they want to be on the other side of that risk. | gpsx wrote: | I don't think it is different, apart from any issues with | timing of the buying and selling and price changes in between. | I think this is more a question that the government doesn't | have the gold and buying it from the miners is how they will | get it. I don't think they are giving the miners a bad deal, | other than forcing them to accept Cedis. I believe the net | effect is that fewer Cedis are put on the market for dollars | and this prevents a price drop in Cedis. | gpsx wrote: | I'm not sure why this was downvoted. I did leave out one | thing - I think the Ghana government is making a statement | that they don't want to transact in dollars. That is an | important difference, but it is not related to the monetary | dynamics. | elzbardico wrote: | Decoupling from the western financial system and having a | higher level of resilience from sanctions. You never know if | the US will decide tomorrow you're not behaving as expected | under the internal rules-based order. | robertlagrant wrote: | Why would the US be able to stop them buying oil using their | dollars? | bell-cot wrote: | Very Roughly: | | Countries don't buy oil (or anything else) with a suitcase | or few stuffed with $100 bills.* Instead, they have a | really big bank move US dollars through the international | banking system electronically. | | Any really big bank that wants to keep its US-issued | "Allowed to Handle US Dollars Electronically" License has | got to follow a bunch of US-made rules. Which rules | doubtless permit the US to make & enforce a very long | blacklist, of various countries / organizations / people | who the US doesn't want banks to work with. | | (That said, I see no reason to suspect that Ghana has any | interest in "Decoupling from the western financial system", | as elzbardico put it. Though obviously the subjects of oil, | gold, dollars, etc. are pushing a whole lotta people's | emotional buttons in this item.) | | *Yes, there _are_ exceptions - usually involving sanctions- | busting by folks who don 't care about drawing hostile | attention from the US. | lottin wrote: | > US-issued "Allowed to Handle US Dollars Electronically" | License | | Source? | twoclicksnorth wrote: | al transactions in usd are settled in US. even if trade | happens in other places. hence they have the ability. | giaour wrote: | > al transactions in usd are settled in US. | | Do you mean this in some metaphysical sense? Because you | can exchange USD for gods or services outside the US | without the US government getting involved. | Ekaros wrote: | There is essentially loans of USD that happen on balance | sheets that is paper between institutions outside of USA. | So such trading and settlement is possible. But if there | is block of actually getting this money in real dollars, | that is rather pointless even more monopoly money. | lottin wrote: | What do you mean real dollars? Dollar deposits in bank | accounts outside the US are as real as dollars deposited | in US banks. | RedBeetDeadpool wrote: | Because there are no dollars involved. If they do as you | suggest, at the start: | | A holds gold. | | B holds dollars. | | C holds oil. | | A trades B, gold for dollars. A holds dollars, B holds gold. | | A trades C, dollars for oil. A holds oil, C holds dollars. | | After your suggested trade result: | | A holds oil. | | B holds gold. | | C holds dollars. | | If there is no "middle man", party A gets oil, party C gets | gold. Party B keeps their dollars. End result: | | A holds oil. | | B holds dollars. | | C holds gold. | | Assuming "B" is USA, USA doesn't get to export its | inflation/funding for stimulus checks/student debt/pension | crisis/(or in trump era - a wall that does nothing) away to | "C", whoever that ends up being, meanwhile, Ghana gets the oil | it wants, and "C" gets currency without having to pay for the | choices of politicians they have no control over. | nickdothutton wrote: | The US export of inflation via engineered demand for | petrodollars (and one could say enforcement via aircraft | carrier groups) is an under appreciated effect. | luciusdomitius wrote: | It is literally the most controversial concept in today's | geopolitics. Study politics science in Dover - it is a | conspiracy theory. Study PS in Calais - it is the | exorbitant privilege and a cornerstone of global injustice. | And it is not like France and the empire are rivals. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exorbitant_privilege | rsync wrote: | ... charitably, I think your parent refers to | underappreciation _within the United States_ which I | think is a fair assessment. | foooobaba wrote: | Regarding France, actually they play this game too. Check | out the West/Central African CFA franc [2]. These | currencies are pegged to 1/100 French franc, which | currently about 1/656 euros. Many former French colonies | are required to use the CFA franc, minted by France, and | required to keep 85% in reserve in French banks, | including during times of hardship, but they can always | barrow against their reserve and pay France the interest | if they need to. In 2019 France has promised to drop it | and let the africans have their own called eco [2] by | 2027, but, also it keeps getting postponed and was | supposed to already happen by 2020, so who knows. Trying | to go against france can result in an assassination or | coup, or other creative acts by france (see Operation | Persil [3]). | | [1] | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_African_CFA_franc | | [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco_(currency) | | [3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op%C3%A9ration_Persil | happyjack wrote: | This! This is the answer! Trading in dollars creates micro | transactions where the USA can export inflation and much of | its problems. | dismantlethesun wrote: | Transactions in Ghana cannot directly be in dollars, so when a | USD price is quoted for a foreign sale behind the scenes what | happens is cedis are brought in, converted to dollars, then | given to the foreign party. | | This creates a demand for dollars in Ghana, that puts downward | pressure on the cedis. | | So this avoids that, hopefully reduces inflation. | boringg wrote: | Saves them conversion fees for converting gold to USD then to | Oil. | Andrew_nenakhov wrote: | So that's why they received that penalty in recent game vs | Portugal. It was a warning. | llampx wrote: | Regime change in 3... 2... | rightbyte wrote: | Ye ... It would not surprise me even a little bit. | jerkstate wrote: | Don't necessarily even need to plan for a new regime. Libya | tried this and now they are a failed state with open air slave | markets. | luciusdomitius wrote: | https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/feb/16/iraq.theeur. | .. :D | [deleted] | happyjack wrote: | It is really interesting that the folks running the show in the | USA are able to export a lot of the problems with the $ to the | rest of the world. Caribbean nations know this first hand, and | have given in to the peg. | | I worked in oil, and now work in an industry where I sell parts | worldwide. I'm not a trained economist, but deal with currency | and transfer pricing with labor and goods. | | Couple things: what a lot of people don't know or understand is | that pretty much all transactions worldwide are intermediate by | USD. Meaning, if a company in Sweden wants to buy something in | Cameroon, the banks don't swap currency. They buy dollars with | krona and then buy francs with the dollar. | | This may seem "academic" on paper, but the world essentially has | to deal with the dollar and the USA fed and its people with every | transaction countries do! They're getting taxes each time they | want to trade. Switzerland has purposely devalued its currency | because the opposite happened: people were buying Swiss francs as | a "safe" investment and not trading or circulating them. I | digress ... | | The only country I see that could actually disrupt the petro | dollar is Russia. Russia is doing this on a small scale by | forcing Europe to purchase energy in rubbles. Ghana? They may be | seeing a three letter agency from the USA very soon ... | | China? They do too much contract manufacturing for America, and | no one wants yen or a currency from a dictatorship. Europe? Too | much debt, and they would have to centralize spending (trying to | do this with EU commission). | bilbo0s wrote: | _Ghana? They may be seeing a three letter agency from the USA | very soon_ | | This is sad precisely because it's so true. I wish poor | countries were free to make trades on terms that were more | fair. But that's not the world we live in. | | In any case, I applaud Ghana for trying. | | I really do wish them luck, but I'd advise them to ready their | internal security services. (I suspect there will be a lot of | unrest there in the very near future.) And I'd also advise | beefing up the quality of their healthcare facilities. Because | I think they may see a rise in cancer diagnoses among leaders | in their steward classes over the next few years. | edgyquant wrote: | >They may be seeing a three letter agency from the USA very | soon | | Yeah this shows how little your credibility is. Idiotic meme | that was never true | happyjack wrote: | You realize that the CIA exist to keep international | interests in line, and the FBI exists for domestic | tranquility? | zizee wrote: | You think that the USA has never employed it's three letter | agencies to protect its interests? | happyjack wrote: | I'm kind of confused by his comment. Isn't it common | knowledge (and even admitted) that American three letter | agencies protect their interests at almost full cost? | | The fbi had plans to assassinate MLK, and the cia led how | many revolutions. | themihai wrote: | Some people still live in denial. I can surely see CIA | paying a visit to Ghana's officials. | themihai wrote: | Indeed, right? Funny fact: Wikileaks is blocked my ISP (in | Europe). | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27eta. | .. | jkepler wrote: | > China? They do too much contract manufacturing for America, | and no one wants yen or a currency from a dictatorship. | | Yen is Japanese currency; yuan is China's money. | happyjack wrote: | I vote using Renminbi instead of yuan. I mentally swap it | with yen too often. | pwm wrote: | I know a lot of people dislike bitcoin here but I'm wondering | (with the huge assumption that its value stabilises over time) | would it not actually be a better solution? Not just from an | obvious logistical but also from an environmental perspective? | I'd imagine gold mining to be much more destructive (both to | nature and to human life). | Ekaros wrote: | And why give all that wealth away to current holders? Nothing | actually make bitcoin inherently valuable on nation-state | level. | | Gold is fine for now and maybe in future some new agreed upon | commodity-current basket currency. | tremarley wrote: | It would be a lot easier. Many countries currently keep bitcoin | in their reserves such as Russia, USA & China. | | Eventually Bitcoin or a similar style coin will be used for | global trade | fendy3002 wrote: | I wonder if they can use it? As a noob I see that crypto value | is very volatile and don't have intrinsic value, unlike gold | that somehow is accepted universally as valuable. | tremarley wrote: | It has intrinsic value as it requires work to mine it. It is | impossible to generate more whenever you want. | | You can spend bitcoin in every country, it's valuable | everywhere. | andsoitis wrote: | > It has intrinsic value as it requires work to mine it. | | All work isn't equally valuable. Some work is worth | nothing. | | > It is impossible to generate more whenever you want. | | Value and wealth do not only arise from scarcity. | imtringued wrote: | Honestly hell would freeze over before that happens. It would | be more likely that IMF SDRs will be used as an alternative to | dollars than Bitcoin. | senectus1 wrote: | The crypto market (including btc) is incredibly fragile. | | It's also got way too shallow a gene pool (meaning too few hold | too much). | | Until it gets spread further and wider it can't be relied on | for much. | bell-cot wrote: | Suggested Thought Experiment: | | For folks getting really excited here about the US, the US | Dollar, etc. - imagine that, for some weird reason, the world's | reserve currency was the Tongan pa`anga ( | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongan_pa%CA%BBanga ). And that | (similar to what the the story notes, for USD) Ghana's reserve of | pa`anga was running low, so they were looking to buy oil with | gold instead of pa`anga, to (as others have noted) put a | smokescreen in front of a big new tax on local gold producers in | Ghana. (Gold was ~50% of Ghana's exports in 2019, so there's | plenty of income to tax there.) | | How differently would you view this situation and story, if "US" | and "USD" were replaced with (presumably emotionally neutral) | "Tonga" and "pa`anga"? | bannedbybros wrote: | kumarvvr wrote: | Realistically, how much gold does Ghana have to actually sustain | this long term? | | Would they be trading in Gold for other exports? | missedthecue wrote: | The are the 6th largest gold producer globally | latchkey wrote: | > Ghana produces crude oil, but it has relied on imports for | refined oil products since its only refinery shut down after an | explosion in 2017. | | Sounds like South Sudan, which Indigo Traveller recently | visited... tl'dr: it is a huge mess. | | https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXulruMI7BHj3kGyosNa0jA/vid... | jeffbee wrote: | "tehran oil bourse" is one of the older kooky internet theories | about how the whole US dollar system is supported by oil. I | honestly don't know why these kinds of stories and theories are | so appealing to a certain kind of internet guy. | fernandohur wrote: | Small reminder: ghana's consumption of oil is 0.1% of the worlds | total oil consumption (Source: | https://www.worldometers.info/oil/ghana-oil/), essentially a | rounding error. Take this into account before making any | statements about the ending dominance of the dollar. | SQueeeeeL wrote: | Ahh yes, small changes never preclude larger shifts in large | geopolitical entities. | | But also if anyone tells you they know the future, they're | probably trying to sell you something. If I were in charge of | Ghana's finances, I'd be pretty cautious of standing in front | of any windows for the next few years. | imtringued wrote: | Brexit was supposed to be the end of the EU. | [deleted] | notahacker wrote: | Small changes preclude absolutely nothing happening far more | often, and the imminent demise of the petrodollar has been | forecast for fifty years involving some much more seismic | events than a country with gold mines and a severe dollar | reserve shortage and debt problem proposing that gold might | solve their problem. | | At least the half dozen "gold dinar" projects had a bit of | global ambition and a theoretical rationale for the religion | of much of the world's oil exporting economies to | participate. | tiahura wrote: | To all opining about the ongoing demise of the dollar, please | take a look at a 10 year DXY chart. | | Executive summary: It's stronger than ever. | Rexxar wrote: | Higher price and higher usage are not the same thing, a less | used dollar would not necessarily have lower value. The | evolution of foreign exchange market turnover would be a better | indicator to look at : | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_pair#Base_currency // | https://www.bis.org/statistics/rpfx22_fx.pdf | | (it's also increasing in the 3 last years) | hmate9 wrote: | 1) it was much stronger in 1985 | | 2) just because it's strong now doesn't mean it cannot _ever_ | fail. Ray Dalio's new book might interest you as he breaks down | past world powers and how their currencies (which were global | reserve currencies at the time) collapsed ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-11-25 23:00 UTC)