6 ms·

thats a very US-centric view. not everything is monetary, certain things are simply setup with intent of management and responsibility in a global world. DNS is

by beiz 7y ago

thats a very US-centric view. not everything is monetary, certain things are simply setup with intent of management and responsibility in a global world. DNS is one of those things, GPS another. do note that neither of these are exclusively owned by the US, but rather that the US owns the responsibility to maintain these services that we all use. even the dollar as reserve is a fickle thing that could change if the rest of us choose to. with everything set in place and the technology readily available, we could all just drop the US as our client provider and tank the american economy. we don't, because shit like this isn't supposed to happen, but push hard enough, and it will. you already see russia and china going this route.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> neither of these are exclusively owned by the US, but rather that the US owns the responsibility to maintain these services that we all use For all practical purposes, these systems are owned by the U.S. because America maintains them. That lets the U.S. government cut it off to unfriendly users, the definition of control.
- beiz 7y ago
  They are allowed to own and maintain and control these systems. No one is forced to use them, and if the US abuse it, they lose the control they currently are allowed to possess.
kick 7y ago
DNS is one of those things, False. do note that neither of these are exclusively owned by the US, False. but rather that the US owns the responsibility to maintain these services that we all use. False. The US has no responsibility, they own it. even the dollar as reserve is a fickle thing that could change if the rest of us choose to. And until other countries choose to, they get to deal with the consequences of their shortsighted reaches for centralization. we could all just drop the US as our client provider and tank the american economy. Good luck, there's plenty of software in Europe with hardcoded URLs, and there's no chance of getting operating systems in Europe, which are contributed to almost exclusively by US companies, to switch their DNS over to something that isn't ICANN-controlled. we don't, because shit like this isn't supposed to happen, but push hard enough, and it will The US has performed coups on foreign countries at least a dozen times. Other countries won't do a thing, as is shown by historical precedent. you already see russia and china going this route. Neither of those run their own DNS, they leech off of ICANN, and occasionally block things or modify records. Were ICANN to disappear, both would be in disarray.
- anoncake 7y ago
  > False. The US has no responsibility, they own it. The USA is responsible because they own it, as every owner is.
- beiz 7y ago
  > False. False. False. The US has no responsibility, they own it. They own it and share it, they get control and everyone else gets a service, the moment they abuse their control, everyone else will stop their dependence on it. that means they have a responsibility to keep this balance or lose control of it. > Good luck, there's plenty of software in Europe with hardcoded URLs, and there's no chance of getting operating systems in Europe, which are contributed to almost exclusively by US companies, to switch their DNS over to something that isn't ICANN-controlled. legacy systems are mainly an issues for hospitals, and if necessary, the governments (who pays for these hospitals anyway) would afford a switch. the US is more vulnerable for something like this since their hospitals are private. > The US has performed coups on foreign countries at least a dozen times. Other countries won't do a thing, as is shown by historical precedent. the US performs coups in third-world countries struggling with stability. they have never attempted a coup in a well organized country with strong ties. > Neither of those run their own DNS, they leech off of ICANN, and occasionally block things or modify records. Were ICANN to disappear, both would be in disarray. both of these are building their own as we speak. for the very reason we're having this argument.
  - kick 7y ago
    the moment they abuse their control, everyone else will stop their dependence on it. that means they have a responsibility to keep this balance or lose control of it. They're already abusing their control, all other countries are helpless. legacy systems are mainly an issues for hospitals, and if necessary, the governments (who pays for these hospitals anyway) would afford a switch. the US is more vulnerable for something like this since their hospitals are private. I guarantee you it'd take more than a decade to switch from ICANN. the US performs coups in third-world countries struggling with stability. they have never attempted a coup in a well organized country with strong ties. This is ahistorical. both of these are building their own as we speak. for the very reason we're having this argument. Russia isn't building a genuine alternative, and China, while they already have a genuine alternative, would be committing suicide to deprecate any service controlled by ICANN.
filleokus 7y ago
Other commenters have pointed out the flaw in your argument about DNS, but GPS, how can't you consider that as being exclusively owned by the US? It's not like with domain names where some bytes are floating around in networks and it's easiest if we all use the US addressing system. There are ≈ 40 hunks of metals up in space with extremely precise clocks, _completely_ essential to the functioning of the GPS system, owned by the US, sent into space by the US. Just because we leech on their satellites doesn't lower the "exclusivity" of the ownership by the US. Which is also probably why all the other big players (Russia/China/EU) are doing their own GNSS.
- beiz 7y ago
  because as you say, everyone has the ability to switch away from US control if the US abuse it; which is happening - or rather, corporations abuse it and politicians aren't doing their job by stepping in to stop them. politics is like any other relationship; you have to give, receive, and compromise. if you don't, you risk alienating your allies and lose your relationship.
rsj_hn 7y ago
> even the dollar as reserve is a fickle thing that could change if the rest of us choose to. No, you have this all backwards. Let's take a hypothetical country -- Fredonia with it's Fredonian Franc. The government of Fredonia decides "I want to be a global reserve currency!". How would they go about accomplishing that? First, let's define what it means to be a global reserve currency. What it means is that other reserve banks use your currency as their reserve. That means other reserve banks need to accumulate Fredonian Francs, and in large amounts. Of course banks don't warehouse currencies, they would be holding Fredonian Government Bonds (FGB), which must be bought with Fredonian Francs. So how would they get their hands on large numbers of FGBs? By running trade surpluses against Fredonia. In other words, to be a reserve currency means you have to allow the rest of the world to run large trade surpluses against you, which means you have to allow your currency to be permanently overvalued relative to the rest of the world -- relative to what it would be valued if there was no global investment demand for Fredonian Francs. Now, all of a sudden, it's not looking like such a great proposition for the Fredonians, as this means that their own production is disadvantaged in global markets more or less permanently and their financial system has to be huge and swollen. It distorts the Fredonian economy and hurts workers. That would require a very resilient economy and a population willing to tolerate the employment hit to running persistent trade deficits vis-a-vis the rest of the world. Next, Fredonia would need to develop deep and liquid capital markets, so that the rest of the world would be confident in storing their wealth there. That means a long tradition of rule of law, large turnover at low prices, and huge bond markets. Big enough to absorb the surplus of the entire world. It also means that your interest rates are going to be permanently lower than they would be if there was no excess global demand for FGBs. This means your economy is going to be subject to asset bubbles and financialization -- we're talking huge bond markets that risk dominating the country. So the economy of Fredonia has to be big, be investor friendly, have strong property protections and rule of law, a grotesquely bloated and powerful bond market, and be willing to run permanent trade deficits vis-a-vis the rest of the world. Not many nations qualify on all of these accounts, right? China is big enough, but no rule of law, and since their entire economy is based on running trade surpluses instead of trade deficits, they are suited to be the accumulator of global reserves rather than the issuer of global reserves. Saudi Arabia? Nope. The EU? Nope. Simply no one else is both able and willing to pay the price to be a global reserve currency, and that's why it's going to remain the USD. Not only is this not a "fickle" thing, the rest of the world should be grateful that the US is willing to sacrifice the interests of its own workers and production base in order to make sure the rest of the world has a steady supply of USG bonds. Rather, the real question is how long will the US be willing to bear this burden? When the US was 40% of global GDP, and global trade was tiny relative to global GDP, it didn't seem like a very big burden. But today, when the US economy doesn't dominate the rest of the world and trade is huge, the price of being a global reserve currency is devastating. It means de-industrialization, collapsing cities in the rust belt, rising death rates and a shrinking US middle class, as well as rising Federal deficits. I can very easily see a future in which the US starts imposing more and more capital controls that prevent foreigners from purchasing dollar assets similar to protections that other nations have, at which point guess what -- there will be no global reserve currency. The free ride, for the rest of the world's producers, will be over. Trade agreements will need to go back to being settled either bilaterally, or with some kind of specie (gold? silver? bitcoin?). This would be a great thing in some respects, because it would force each nation to not overproduce, but it would cause a huge contraction in international trade, corresponding to a contraction in global GDP and well being, and especially to those economies that rely on running persistent trade surpluses in order to employ their workers -- nations such as Germany, China, Japan will take big hits should they lose the ability to persistently run surpluses.
toyg 7y ago
You were doing well until you dragged GPS and the dollar into the argument. Those are US assets and the US are free to dispose of them as they see fit, no ifs or buts. The rest of the world chooses to piggyback on them because why not, but everybody knows US military and economic requirements will always come first on those platforms. What you should have brought up, really, is the UN. The US pays for most of what is effectively a common good, because it derives prestige, influence, and material advantages (indirect control of a huge chunk of diplomatic communications, tons of money from workers and diplomats stationed there, etc etc) from hosting it. And sure enough, the UN has a specialized agency that would have been the natural destination for a global communication service: the ITU. Sadly, the ITU is (in)famed for being a political clusterf#ck, so a choice was made by the Clinton/Gingrich generation of US politicians to keep the internet well away from it. That might have been a wise choice at the time, but we've since seen the drawbacks of that choice: instead of getting captured by known evils with some (small) degree of accountability, dns was captured by a bunch of new evils that answer to no one. That way lies oligarchy, as Russia showed in the last 30 years.
- beiz 7y ago
  > Those are US assets and the US are free to... GPS is a derivative of Håkan Lans AIS. The US military built the satellite network yes, but had they not shared it, another network would have been constructed to take its place as the technology itself is not American. I fully agree with you though, the UN exist to host these projects as a non-partial entity. The fact that they don't is cause for some frustration and a risk to the world.
syshum 7y ago
GPS is a US Military Asset, 100% owned and operated by the US Military. They allow civilian use of a part of the GPS system during peacetime If another World War breaks out, or major conflict that the military deemed necessary they can and will cut off all Cilivian access to the GPS Network This is why Russia has its own, and China is in the process of Deploying its own, and the EU has considered deploying their own as well.
- detaro 7y ago
  EU is also in the process of deploying its own: Galileo.
  - Accujack 7y ago
    And there are chipsets now capable of simultaneously using GPS, Galileo, and BeiDou (Chinese system) for greater accuracy. Any ability of the US government or military to "cut off" GPS has been nullified.

by beiz 7y ago

JumpCrisscross 7y ago

> neither of these are exclusively owned by the US, but rather that the US owns the responsibility to maintain these services that we all use For all practical purposes, these systems are owned by the U.S. because America maintains them. That lets the U.S. government cut it off to unfriendly users, the definition of control.

beiz 7y ago
They are allowed to own and maintain and control these systems. No one is forced to use them, and if the US abuse it, they lose the control they currently are allowed to possess.

kick 7y ago

DNS is one of those things, False. do note that neither of these are exclusively owned by the US, False. but rather that the US owns the responsibility to maintain these services that we all use. False. The US has no responsibility, they own it. even the dollar as reserve is a fickle thing that could change if the rest of us choose to. And until other countries choose to, they get to deal with the consequences of their shortsighted reaches for centralization. we could all just drop the US as our client provider and tank the american economy. Good luck, there's plenty of software in Europe with hardcoded URLs, and there's no chance of getting operating systems in Europe, which are contributed to almost exclusively by US companies, to switch their DNS over to something that isn't ICANN-controlled. we don't, because shit like this isn't supposed to happen, but push hard enough, and it will The US has performed coups on foreign countries at least a dozen times. Other countries won't do a thing, as is shown by historical precedent. you already see russia and china going this route. Neither of those run their own DNS, they leech off of ICANN, and occasionally block things or modify records. Were ICANN to disappear, both would be in disarray.

anoncake 7y ago
> False. The US has no responsibility, they own it. The USA is responsible because they own it, as every owner is.
beiz 7y ago
> False. False. False. The US has no responsibility, they own it. They own it and share it, they get control and everyone else gets a service, the moment they abuse their control, everyone else will stop their dependence on it. that means they have a responsibility to keep this balance or lose control of it. > Good luck, there's plenty of software in Europe with hardcoded URLs, and there's no chance of getting operating systems in Europe, which are contributed to almost exclusively by US companies, to switch their DNS over to something that isn't ICANN-controlled. legacy systems are mainly an issues for hospitals, and if necessary, the governments (who pays for these hospitals anyway) would afford a switch. the US is more vulnerable for something like this since their hospitals are private. > The US has performed coups on foreign countries at least a dozen times. Other countries won't do a thing, as is shown by historical precedent. the US performs coups in third-world countries struggling with stability. they have never attempted a coup in a well organized country with strong ties. > Neither of those run their own DNS, they leech off of ICANN, and occasionally block things or modify records. Were ICANN to disappear, both would be in disarray. both of these are building their own as we speak. for the very reason we're having this argument.
- kick 7y ago
  the moment they abuse their control, everyone else will stop their dependence on it. that means they have a responsibility to keep this balance or lose control of it. They're already abusing their control, all other countries are helpless. legacy systems are mainly an issues for hospitals, and if necessary, the governments (who pays for these hospitals anyway) would afford a switch. the US is more vulnerable for something like this since their hospitals are private. I guarantee you it'd take more than a decade to switch from ICANN. the US performs coups in third-world countries struggling with stability. they have never attempted a coup in a well organized country with strong ties. This is ahistorical. both of these are building their own as we speak. for the very reason we're having this argument. Russia isn't building a genuine alternative, and China, while they already have a genuine alternative, would be committing suicide to deprecate any service controlled by ICANN.

filleokus 7y ago

Other commenters have pointed out the flaw in your argument about DNS, but GPS, how can't you consider that as being exclusively owned by the US? It's not like with domain names where some bytes are floating around in networks and it's easiest if we all use the US addressing system. There are ≈ 40 hunks of metals up in space with extremely precise clocks, _completely_ essential to the functioning of the GPS system, owned by the US, sent into space by the US. Just because we leech on their satellites doesn't lower the "exclusivity" of the ownership by the US. Which is also probably why all the other big players (Russia/China/EU) are doing their own GNSS.

beiz 7y ago
because as you say, everyone has the ability to switch away from US control if the US abuse it; which is happening - or rather, corporations abuse it and politicians aren't doing their job by stepping in to stop them. politics is like any other relationship; you have to give, receive, and compromise. if you don't, you risk alienating your allies and lose your relationship.

rsj_hn 7y ago

> even the dollar as reserve is a fickle thing that could change if the rest of us choose to. No, you have this all backwards. Let's take a hypothetical country -- Fredonia with it's Fredonian Franc. The government of Fredonia decides "I want to be a global reserve currency!". How would they go about accomplishing that? First, let's define what it means to be a global reserve currency. What it means is that other reserve banks use your currency as their reserve. That means other reserve banks need to accumulate Fredonian Francs, and in large amounts. Of course banks don't warehouse currencies, they would be holding Fredonian Government Bonds (FGB), which must be bought with Fredonian Francs. So how would they get their hands on large numbers of FGBs? By running trade surpluses against Fredonia. In other words, to be a reserve currency means you have to allow the rest of the world to run large trade surpluses against you, which means you have to allow your currency to be permanently overvalued relative to the rest of the world -- relative to what it would be valued if there was no global investment demand for Fredonian Francs. Now, all of a sudden, it's not looking like such a great proposition for the Fredonians, as this means that their own production is disadvantaged in global markets more or less permanently and their financial system has to be huge and swollen. It distorts the Fredonian economy and hurts workers. That would require a very resilient economy and a population willing to tolerate the employment hit to running persistent trade deficits vis-a-vis the rest of the world. Next, Fredonia would need to develop deep and liquid capital markets, so that the rest of the world would be confident in storing their wealth there. That means a long tradition of rule of law, large turnover at low prices, and huge bond markets. Big enough to absorb the surplus of the entire world. It also means that your interest rates are going to be permanently lower than they would be if there was no excess global demand for FGBs. This means your economy is going to be subject to asset bubbles and financialization -- we're talking huge bond markets that risk dominating the country. So the economy of Fredonia has to be big, be investor friendly, have strong property protections and rule of law, a grotesquely bloated and powerful bond market, and be willing to run permanent trade deficits vis-a-vis the rest of the world. Not many nations qualify on all of these accounts, right? China is big enough, but no rule of law, and since their entire economy is based on running trade surpluses instead of trade deficits, they are suited to be the accumulator of global reserves rather than the issuer of global reserves. Saudi Arabia? Nope. The EU? Nope. Simply no one else is both able and willing to pay the price to be a global reserve currency, and that's why it's going to remain the USD. Not only is this not a "fickle" thing, the rest of the world should be grateful that the US is willing to sacrifice the interests of its own workers and production base in order to make sure the rest of the world has a steady supply of USG bonds. Rather, the real question is how long will the US be willing to bear this burden? When the US was 40% of global GDP, and global trade was tiny relative to global GDP, it didn't seem like a very big burden. But today, when the US economy doesn't dominate the rest of the world and trade is huge, the price of being a global reserve currency is devastating. It means de-industrialization, collapsing cities in the rust belt, rising death rates and a shrinking US middle class, as well as rising Federal deficits. I can very easily see a future in which the US starts imposing more and more capital controls that prevent foreigners from purchasing dollar assets similar to protections that other nations have, at which point guess what -- there will be no global reserve currency. The free ride, for the rest of the world's producers, will be over. Trade agreements will need to go back to being settled either bilaterally, or with some kind of specie (gold? silver? bitcoin?). This would be a great thing in some respects, because it would force each nation to not overproduce, but it would cause a huge contraction in international trade, corresponding to a contraction in global GDP and well being, and especially to those economies that rely on running persistent trade surpluses in order to employ their workers -- nations such as Germany, China, Japan will take big hits should they lose the ability to persistently run surpluses.

toyg 7y ago

You were doing well until you dragged GPS and the dollar into the argument. Those are US assets and the US are free to dispose of them as they see fit, no ifs or buts. The rest of the world chooses to piggyback on them because why not, but everybody knows US military and economic requirements will always come first on those platforms. What you should have brought up, really, is the UN. The US pays for most of what is effectively a common good, because it derives prestige, influence, and material advantages (indirect control of a huge chunk of diplomatic communications, tons of money from workers and diplomats stationed there, etc etc) from hosting it. And sure enough, the UN has a specialized agency that would have been the natural destination for a global communication service: the ITU. Sadly, the ITU is (in)famed for being a political clusterf#ck, so a choice was made by the Clinton/Gingrich generation of US politicians to keep the internet well away from it. That might have been a wise choice at the time, but we've since seen the drawbacks of that choice: instead of getting captured by known evils with some (small) degree of accountability, dns was captured by a bunch of new evils that answer to no one. That way lies oligarchy, as Russia showed in the last 30 years.

beiz 7y ago
> Those are US assets and the US are free to... GPS is a derivative of Håkan Lans AIS. The US military built the satellite network yes, but had they not shared it, another network would have been constructed to take its place as the technology itself is not American. I fully agree with you though, the UN exist to host these projects as a non-partial entity. The fact that they don't is cause for some frustration and a risk to the world.

syshum 7y ago

GPS is a US Military Asset, 100% owned and operated by the US Military. They allow civilian use of a part of the GPS system during peacetime If another World War breaks out, or major conflict that the military deemed necessary they can and will cut off all Cilivian access to the GPS Network This is why Russia has its own, and China is in the process of Deploying its own, and the EU has considered deploying their own as well.

detaro 7y ago
EU is also in the process of deploying its own: Galileo.
- Accujack 7y ago
  And there are chipsets now capable of simultaneously using GPS, Galileo, and BeiDou (Chinese system) for greater accuracy. Any ability of the US government or military to "cut off" GPS has been nullified.