5 ms·

Nah -- Bill Browder seems to be a expert on this exact topic. He's saying to pull Russia from Swift. His experience suggests he is intimately familiar with the

by s_dev 5y ago

Nah -- Bill Browder seems to be a expert on this exact topic. He's saying to pull Russia from Swift. His experience suggests he is intimately familiar with the financial world and the consequences. He's the genesis of the Magnitsky Act -- the one thing that actually scares Putin. I know this because Putin even said if Russia was removed from Swift he would consider it an act of war. https://twitter.com/Billbrowder/status/1496799227082649603 https://twitter.com/Billbrowder/status/1496799227082649603

legalcorrection 5y ago
Him thinking that, however qualified he is, does not mean he's right. Being the CEO of a hedge fund, with a personal grudge against Russia, does not make you infallible. The US benefits enormously from owning the reserve currency and running the world financial system, and the ultimate effect of our trigger-happy approach to sanctions is to push countries away from those, especially with the US becoming a smaller percent of the world economy every year. Even the Europeans are sick of it. The Europeans only play along still because they are militarily dependent on the US, in part because their populations have, under the comfort of the US security umbrella, developed irrational political beliefs against building up their own militaries.
- ajross 5y ago
  > The US benefits enormously from owning the reserve currency and running the world financial system, and the ultimate effect of our trigger-happy approach to sanctions is to push countries away from those That seems belied by actual history. The US has been a "trigger happy" sanctioner for basically the entirety of the post-war era, and the dollar has been dominant throughout. What would change now that didn't when we sanctioned Iran, or Iraq, or Cuba, or Yugoslavia, or...
  - legalcorrection 5y ago
    What's changing is that every year the US economy is becoming less important for the rest of the world.
  - Mountain_Skies 5y ago
    Eventually a tipping point is reached and a seemingly minor event can cause irreversible change many magnitudes larger than the event itself. This is ok if you're certain where the tipping point exists and can keep from getting too close to it but in economics, especially when intertwined with geopolitical matters, it's doubtful anyone even knows the ballpark of where that tipping point exists until they're looking at it in the past.
- jorblumesea 5y ago
  As opposed to random commenters on HN who are likely SWE and not experts in finance or geopolitics? I hate this trend of "well he's an expert so he might be wrong". Okay, sure, we are all human and make mistakes, but, he's also an expert and you don't become an expert by being wrong all the time. Not sure how many people here are qualified to comment on these events instead of him.
  - legalcorrection 5y ago
    >I hate this trend of "well he's an expert so he might be wrong". Trotting out an expert who you agree with, to end discussion, is just as bad. You can find reasonable experts on all sides of issues. It's almost always used as a rhetorical technique to shut down debate.
    - jorblumesea 5y ago
      Trotting out an expert is far better than just random comments from uninformed people. I'd just rather say "I have this expert I agree with" vs "I'm a SWE that has no background in this and my opinions are somehow weighted the same" or "this expert is wrong despite the fact that I have no understanding of this subject"
      - legalcorrection 5y ago
        Might be worth considering that some of the people in this conversation are well versed in foreign policy debates and don't need to cite to names to invoke reasonable ideas.
        jorblumesea 5y ago
        Might be worth to consider that HN commenters clearly are not foreign policy experts and should be citing people that are. Lots of armchair "experts" around here thinking that because they are smart people who work in a stem field, that their opinions should carry any weight. Would you take tech advice from a history professor? No? Then why is it ok to do it for geopolitics? Even experts cite each other.
from 5y ago
If the Magnitsky Act actually worked then we would expect changes in the behavior of the people it sanctioned to get off the list. Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnitsky_Act#Individuals_affected https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnitsky_Act#Individuals_affe..., it doesn't seem too effective. Dan Gertler is still a billionaire even though he's on the list. In practice I suspect OFAC designations just mean the designated individuals need to pay some lawyers a fee to get their assets held in the names of nominees.

by s_dev 5y ago

legalcorrection 5y ago

Him thinking that, however qualified he is, does not mean he's right. Being the CEO of a hedge fund, with a personal grudge against Russia, does not make you infallible. The US benefits enormously from owning the reserve currency and running the world financial system, and the ultimate effect of our trigger-happy approach to sanctions is to push countries away from those, especially with the US becoming a smaller percent of the world economy every year. Even the Europeans are sick of it. The Europeans only play along still because they are militarily dependent on the US, in part because their populations have, under the comfort of the US security umbrella, developed irrational political beliefs against building up their own militaries.

ajross 5y ago
> The US benefits enormously from owning the reserve currency and running the world financial system, and the ultimate effect of our trigger-happy approach to sanctions is to push countries away from those That seems belied by actual history. The US has been a "trigger happy" sanctioner for basically the entirety of the post-war era, and the dollar has been dominant throughout. What would change now that didn't when we sanctioned Iran, or Iraq, or Cuba, or Yugoslavia, or...
- legalcorrection 5y ago
  What's changing is that every year the US economy is becoming less important for the rest of the world.
- Mountain_Skies 5y ago
  Eventually a tipping point is reached and a seemingly minor event can cause irreversible change many magnitudes larger than the event itself. This is ok if you're certain where the tipping point exists and can keep from getting too close to it but in economics, especially when intertwined with geopolitical matters, it's doubtful anyone even knows the ballpark of where that tipping point exists until they're looking at it in the past.
jorblumesea 5y ago
As opposed to random commenters on HN who are likely SWE and not experts in finance or geopolitics? I hate this trend of "well he's an expert so he might be wrong". Okay, sure, we are all human and make mistakes, but, he's also an expert and you don't become an expert by being wrong all the time. Not sure how many people here are qualified to comment on these events instead of him.
- legalcorrection 5y ago
  >I hate this trend of "well he's an expert so he might be wrong". Trotting out an expert who you agree with, to end discussion, is just as bad. You can find reasonable experts on all sides of issues. It's almost always used as a rhetorical technique to shut down debate.
  - jorblumesea 5y ago
    Trotting out an expert is far better than just random comments from uninformed people. I'd just rather say "I have this expert I agree with" vs "I'm a SWE that has no background in this and my opinions are somehow weighted the same" or "this expert is wrong despite the fact that I have no understanding of this subject"
    - legalcorrection 5y ago
      Might be worth considering that some of the people in this conversation are well versed in foreign policy debates and don't need to cite to names to invoke reasonable ideas.
      - jorblumesea 5y ago
        Might be worth to consider that HN commenters clearly are not foreign policy experts and should be citing people that are. Lots of armchair "experts" around here thinking that because they are smart people who work in a stem field, that their opinions should carry any weight. Would you take tech advice from a history professor? No? Then why is it ok to do it for geopolitics? Even experts cite each other.

from 5y ago

If the Magnitsky Act actually worked then we would expect changes in the behavior of the people it sanctioned to get off the list. Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnitsky_Act#Individuals_affected https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnitsky_Act#Individuals_affe..., it doesn't seem too effective. Dan Gertler is still a billionaire even though he's on the list. In practice I suspect OFAC designations just mean the designated individuals need to pay some lawyers a fee to get their assets held in the names of nominees.