5 ms·

As a point of fact, it isn't true that the dominant currency imposing costs is new...that has always happened. Britain did it in order to secure continued use o

As a point of fact, it isn't true that the dominant currency imposing costs is new...that has always happened. Britain did it in order to secure continued use of the £, and the US has done it before now. It is a normal extension of foreign policy (because finance is not separate from politics, as the Rusal example shows). It isn't some kind of authoritarian aberration either. The point is that the US has most to lose from a system of free trade so is the one who shoulders most of the burden for securing it. You don't secure something by sitting back and letting people ride all over it. And yes, some people who don't want to play by those rules will grouse. But the system will always lean towards one dominant currency, it is just easier that way (the UK losing control was was unexpected and took nearly six decades to play out after the point of obvious decline). The world is awash in dollars, no need to worry (if anything, the issue is that some are too reliant on too much dollar funding...not that the world is moving away). It is kind of unfortunate that the Economist keeps getting worse. The election of Mango Man and Brexit has truly addled the minds of some generally smart people (or made clear that their smartness wasn't actual intelligence but an ability to just parrot whatever they were told was "right").

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
> It is kind of unfortunate that the Economist keeps getting worse. The election of Mango Man and Brexit has truly addled the minds of some generally smart people (or made clear that their smartness wasn't actual intelligence but an ability to just parrot whatever they were told was "right"). Sad to agree. It really is eye opening to see how many of “the smart people” get is so damn wrong over and over because of narrative or hope or just some weird political blindness.
pyuser583 7y ago
I've subscribed to the Economist for the past five years (or so). It's sad to see their decline. About 90% is still good, especially when they focus of international news. But they're willing to publish lower quality articles when defending their official liberal position. Sadly, the occasional low-quality article is seeping into other areas.
- hogFeast 7y ago
  Yep, have been reading for 15 years and it has only got really bad over the past few years (imo, it started before Trump). I actually wouldn't say it is about having an official position either. The OP really isn't about liberalism vs illiberalism...politics/finance are inseparable and the US is the guarantor for an open financial system. The article ends up arguing for the position of Iran/Russia/China (and the illiberal voices within the EU like Juncker) who extract from the system without paying in. You can't respond to illiberalism with liberalism. Imo, this is a fairly obvious aspect of international relations that, in the past, the Economist rarely missed. But since the switch in editor, it has become: our goal is Trump bad, let's write an article that shows this so we will get there any way we can. It isn't only Trump though. In other areas, writers dispense with liberal values whenever it suits (which is increasingly common these days).
thawaway1837 7y ago
I’m not sure I get your argument. It doesn’t appear the Economist article is claiming that the dominant currency has only just started imposing costs. Their claim is that the recent increased costs, and more relevantly their almost arbitrary nature, hasn’t just led to the usual suspects grousing, but has also started causing allies who didn’t grouse in the past, to actively seek and build alternatives. As a result, the USD may potentially lose its status as the dominant currency much sooner that it may have otherwise.
- hogFeast 7y ago
  Yes, the main contention of the article is that this is unusual. If you think it through: the only way this article makes sense is if that claim is made...otherwise, the US was doing this in the past and it made no difference (which is true). I think you are taking a slightly expansive definition of ally. You are referring to the EU? A significant grouping within the EU does not regard the US as an ally (particularly economically, ref France bringing down Bretton Woods...the US is the giving tree here, the more you give, the more the EU takes)...and all of the people grousing are the usual suspects (China, Juncker, etc.). And no, you need to justify an extraordinary claim with extraordinary evidence. None of this is even remotely extraordinary (and counter to the fairly obvious evidence of the dollar's position growing...not receding).

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago

> It is kind of unfortunate that the Economist keeps getting worse. The election of Mango Man and Brexit has truly addled the minds of some generally smart people (or made clear that their smartness wasn't actual intelligence but an ability to just parrot whatever they were told was "right"). Sad to agree. It really is eye opening to see how many of “the smart people” get is so damn wrong over and over because of narrative or hope or just some weird political blindness.

pyuser583 7y ago

I've subscribed to the Economist for the past five years (or so). It's sad to see their decline. About 90% is still good, especially when they focus of international news. But they're willing to publish lower quality articles when defending their official liberal position. Sadly, the occasional low-quality article is seeping into other areas.

hogFeast 7y ago
Yep, have been reading for 15 years and it has only got really bad over the past few years (imo, it started before Trump). I actually wouldn't say it is about having an official position either. The OP really isn't about liberalism vs illiberalism...politics/finance are inseparable and the US is the guarantor for an open financial system. The article ends up arguing for the position of Iran/Russia/China (and the illiberal voices within the EU like Juncker) who extract from the system without paying in. You can't respond to illiberalism with liberalism. Imo, this is a fairly obvious aspect of international relations that, in the past, the Economist rarely missed. But since the switch in editor, it has become: our goal is Trump bad, let's write an article that shows this so we will get there any way we can. It isn't only Trump though. In other areas, writers dispense with liberal values whenever it suits (which is increasingly common these days).

thawaway1837 7y ago

I’m not sure I get your argument. It doesn’t appear the Economist article is claiming that the dominant currency has only just started imposing costs. Their claim is that the recent increased costs, and more relevantly their almost arbitrary nature, hasn’t just led to the usual suspects grousing, but has also started causing allies who didn’t grouse in the past, to actively seek and build alternatives. As a result, the USD may potentially lose its status as the dominant currency much sooner that it may have otherwise.

hogFeast 7y ago
Yes, the main contention of the article is that this is unusual. If you think it through: the only way this article makes sense is if that claim is made...otherwise, the US was doing this in the past and it made no difference (which is true). I think you are taking a slightly expansive definition of ally. You are referring to the EU? A significant grouping within the EU does not regard the US as an ally (particularly economically, ref France bringing down Bretton Woods...the US is the giving tree here, the more you give, the more the EU takes)...and all of the people grousing are the usual suspects (China, Juncker, etc.). And no, you need to justify an extraordinary claim with extraordinary evidence. None of this is even remotely extraordinary (and counter to the fairly obvious evidence of the dollar's position growing...not receding).