6 ms·

Regardless of politics I think it's objective to say we're seeing a major increase in the weaponization of the global financial system. Perhaps the most importa

Regardless of politics I think it's objective to say we're seeing a major increase in the weaponization of the global financial system. Perhaps the most important second order effect (assuming/praying that the war ends very soon) is a faster de-dollarization in China. A question: does Switzerland have any prior precedent of actions like this? I thought they were neutral?

cjbgkagh 5y ago
It’s like society has progressed very quickly from financially canceling people to financially cancelling countries
- lm28469 5y ago
  We also progressed from annihilating countries to financially "cancelling" countries. Financial war is still better than total war You can also ask Cuba what they think about the "new" aspect of financial cancellation, or 1920s Germany
  - cjbgkagh 5y ago
    It seems that this is a result of populist pressure, hence the qualifier 'society' and that part seems new. I think the politicians were hesitant to do this for good reasons, I assume that they didn't want to back Russia into a corner. Back Cuba or 1920s Germany into a corner fine... but Russia that is a whole different beast. There is a very Twitter mob feel about it.
    - threeseed 5y ago
      You must be utterly delusional to think that the EU, US, Japan etc. are implementing these sanctions because of popular pressure and not because Russia's behaviour is an existential threat to the world order. If it was purely populist Germany would be using the $100b they have committed for NATO defence and spent it on universally popular policies e.g. tax cuts or handouts.
    - rsynnott 5y ago
      Hold on. Russia just invaded its neighbour, and you think the international response is due to _Twitter_?! Like, I'm not sure what else Russia would've expected.
    - lm28469 5y ago
      > I think the politicians were hesitant to do this for good reasons Well yeah, sanctions are also impacting us on many levels and they're damaging future relations for decades, that's obviously not something to take lightly. But what's the other options ? Not do anything ? > There is a very Twitter mob feel about it We would have said that about the Treaty of Versailles too, we just didn't have twitter back then. I think people are delusional because these types of events aren't a thing in Europe for quite some time now, I bet they'd blame the "cancel culture" and say that Putin is an angel
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      > There is a very Twitter mob feel about it. Twitter and media pressure that calls for war just a bit less than Russia invading Ukraine. I bet there are many people secretly very happy about that. Often it is just plain idiocy though.
- blunte 5y ago
  You failed to insert "woke" somewhere in your post.
- threeseed 5y ago
  These statements always confuse me. Never in history has there ever been consequence-free speech or egalitarian trade and economics.
sva_ 5y ago
> A question: does Switzerland have any prior precedent of actions like this? I thought they were neutral? They aren't that neutral. > Close cooperation has also been established in the area of international sanctions. As of 2006, Switzerland has adopted five EU sanctions that were instituted outside of the United Nations. Those affected the former Republic of Yugoslavia (1998), Myanmar (2000), Zimbabwe (2002), Uzbekistan (2006) and Belarus (2006). [0] There were many more since. > de-dollarization in China I'm not sure how you mean this (which side), but I think a de-dollarization in China would be terrible. Countries will still rely on their manufacturing etc, so sanctioning them out of SWIFT would probably just weaken SWIFT, since it'd encourage them to have their own system (since it must exist by necessity of the world's dependence on Chinese stuff). These sort of sanctions only work because there's just a small fraction/party being excluded, I think. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland%E2%80%93European_Union_relations#Foreign_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland%E2%80%93European_U...
- kaycebasques 5y ago
  By faster de-dollarization I meant that China may speed up their work to voluntarily depend less on the dollar. It sounds like you might have interpreted me as meaning that other countries would sanction China out of being able to use the dollar. That's not what I was intending.
- noxer 5y ago
  They are! Neutral as in "does not participate in armed conflicts between other states". People just have a huge misconception of what the "neutrality" in "Swiss neutrality" really means. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30494956 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30494956
- yufeng66 5y ago
  De-dollarization won’t happen in China. Chinese government is addicted to economic growth. The legitimacy of the government depends on it. There are only 3 ways to generate growth: infrastructure investment, consumption and export. The investment approach generates too much debt and one can argue China has reached limit there. Chinese has never been able to increase the consumption as a percentage of GDP in a meaningful way. So they have to rely on export. There is no way they can grow export without dollar.
mrtksn 5y ago
It’s nothing new, it was always like that. Ask Iran, Cuba or DPRK. It makes all sense in the world, if you are not a cooperating entity you are cut off from the network and you are free to do your own thing. Obviously, you can be bullied into things that might not be in your own interest but you are still free to asses the pro’s and con’s and break of if it’s better for you. Unless you are benefiting too much from the arrangement, there’s no interest in bullying you because it’s actually a in a mutual interest to have you onboard. It’s much, much better option to settling things down through killing each other.
- clove 5y ago
  Off topic, but could you respond to my question in the Booking.com thread?
  - mrtksn 5y ago
    Oh O.K. Let me check
outside1234 5y ago
There is no neutral. Either you oppose evil or you are implicitly for it.
- mancerayder 5y ago
  There's hubris in the belief that one 'knows' always and every time what good and evil are. There were always multiple sides, each on the side of Good, killing each other, since antiquity. The more modern enlightened moralist should strive to question one's information and assumptions, at all times. Oftentimes, looking back in history we see moral ambiguities. Certainly in the field of international relations the concepts of good and evil are in the realm of media commentary and politicians. Foreign policy crafters, and the literature around them, have a completely other way of talking.
  - mochomocha 5y ago
    I don't think the parent meant that it's always easy to discern good from evil. The same way I don't think you believe in absolute bothsidesism. But in some extreme cases (such as current invasion of Ukraine or Nazism last century), it would be pretty hard to argue that there's not one better side. Switzerland isn't asked to pick sides in every single conflict. Starting with the clearest cut ones would be moral progress.
    - mancerayder 5y ago
      I'm obviously absolutely pro-Ukraine, especially as I'm Western European, with Western European values and with a decided belief that Western European ideas are better than what's currently being offered - what Russia for example offers - as an alternative. And while rooting for the Ukrainian side, I can't even find the Russian perspective within the sphere of information and data, other than what Russians tell me, which sounds so completely different information-wise, that I wonder if we live on the same planets. In fact I got off the phone with a Russian friend a few hours ago, and I asked their perspective but replied nothing in response. It was literally 100% inverted: that the country was fighting fascism and was conned by the U.S. due to weapons treaties in the past. So the question is NOT about morals, whose are better - it's hard to find a villain in history with an army behind them, where each individual believed in their own evil. So the question is about information asymmetry, at the very least, a foggy issue we have to get past before we talk about morals. Again, I'm about 90% confident that the Russian side aren't behaving in good faith, but I leave that 10%. And most importantly I recognize my bias, in the superiority of Western European values, which means that I'm also biased with regards to those nations having the military upper hand. Which implies that even if the situation were much more ambiguous I would likely root for the Ukrainian side. I hope that does the opposite of clear up the issue! War is rarely a matter of good and evil purely. It's a muddled world we live in.
standardUser 5y ago
During the Cold War there were two competing blocks, so many nations had a choice. The ability to "weaponize" the current system relies on the fact that there's no longer an alternative, and it's hard to imagine one emerging!
- throwoutway 5y ago
  CIPS is the emerging alternative
  - standardUser 5y ago
    That sounds like one piece of a system. The Western-led system is comprised of dozens of international treaties and organizations, many of which China is deeply invested in.
noxer 5y ago
Neutral as in "does not participate in armed conflicts between other states". No clue where the interpretation comes from that this "neutrality" is extended to basically everything around the topic of war or military. Switzerland is a weapon export country and has been for a long long time. Neutrality for this only means they dont export to countries at war or if there is reason to believable that the recipient would sell it to countries at war or if it would fall in the hands of terrorists etc. etc. The real swiss neutrality is way broader and includes mandatory independence. So while Switzerland can join sanctions they decide and do not agree in advance to join sanctions the EU defined. It also includes military mission to promote peace. Swisscoy is the association of the Swiss Armed Forces in Kosovo. This is not against the swiss neutrality because there is no armed conflict there. The Swiss Armed Forces there are still armed for self-defense only.
antishatter 5y ago
I think you’re right and this very well be the beginning of the end of dollar hegemony. Though there aren’t yet good alternatives.
raxxorrax 5y ago
I dislike crypt currencies because of the grifters it attracts, but we also saw how the financial system was used against citizens whose assets were frozen. The central bank in the EU cannot really be called independent either. I do like the ability to shape monetary policy, but that would only go hand in hand with governments not able to just deperson people. Corporations do not offer any protection. Like on social media, if there is a legal question, the users gets banned.
MR4D 5y ago
> faster de-dollarization in China. How exactly does that work? As long as Americans send billions of dollars to them for their goods, I don’t see how they can escape it.

cjbgkagh 5y ago

It’s like society has progressed very quickly from financially canceling people to financially cancelling countries

lm28469 5y ago
We also progressed from annihilating countries to financially "cancelling" countries. Financial war is still better than total war You can also ask Cuba what they think about the "new" aspect of financial cancellation, or 1920s Germany
- cjbgkagh 5y ago
  It seems that this is a result of populist pressure, hence the qualifier 'society' and that part seems new. I think the politicians were hesitant to do this for good reasons, I assume that they didn't want to back Russia into a corner. Back Cuba or 1920s Germany into a corner fine... but Russia that is a whole different beast. There is a very Twitter mob feel about it.
  - threeseed 5y ago
    You must be utterly delusional to think that the EU, US, Japan etc. are implementing these sanctions because of popular pressure and not because Russia's behaviour is an existential threat to the world order. If it was purely populist Germany would be using the $100b they have committed for NATO defence and spent it on universally popular policies e.g. tax cuts or handouts.
  - rsynnott 5y ago
    Hold on. Russia just invaded its neighbour, and you think the international response is due to _Twitter_?! Like, I'm not sure what else Russia would've expected.
  - lm28469 5y ago
    > I think the politicians were hesitant to do this for good reasons Well yeah, sanctions are also impacting us on many levels and they're damaging future relations for decades, that's obviously not something to take lightly. But what's the other options ? Not do anything ? > There is a very Twitter mob feel about it We would have said that about the Treaty of Versailles too, we just didn't have twitter back then. I think people are delusional because these types of events aren't a thing in Europe for quite some time now, I bet they'd blame the "cancel culture" and say that Putin is an angel
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    > There is a very Twitter mob feel about it. Twitter and media pressure that calls for war just a bit less than Russia invading Ukraine. I bet there are many people secretly very happy about that. Often it is just plain idiocy though.
blunte 5y ago
You failed to insert "woke" somewhere in your post.
threeseed 5y ago
These statements always confuse me. Never in history has there ever been consequence-free speech or egalitarian trade and economics.

sva_ 5y ago

> A question: does Switzerland have any prior precedent of actions like this? I thought they were neutral? They aren't that neutral. > Close cooperation has also been established in the area of international sanctions. As of 2006, Switzerland has adopted five EU sanctions that were instituted outside of the United Nations. Those affected the former Republic of Yugoslavia (1998), Myanmar (2000), Zimbabwe (2002), Uzbekistan (2006) and Belarus (2006). [0] There were many more since. > de-dollarization in China I'm not sure how you mean this (which side), but I think a de-dollarization in China would be terrible. Countries will still rely on their manufacturing etc, so sanctioning them out of SWIFT would probably just weaken SWIFT, since it'd encourage them to have their own system (since it must exist by necessity of the world's dependence on Chinese stuff). These sort of sanctions only work because there's just a small fraction/party being excluded, I think. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland%E2%80%93European_Union_relations#Foreign_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland%E2%80%93European_U...

kaycebasques 5y ago
By faster de-dollarization I meant that China may speed up their work to voluntarily depend less on the dollar. It sounds like you might have interpreted me as meaning that other countries would sanction China out of being able to use the dollar. That's not what I was intending.
noxer 5y ago
They are! Neutral as in "does not participate in armed conflicts between other states". People just have a huge misconception of what the "neutrality" in "Swiss neutrality" really means. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30494956 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30494956
yufeng66 5y ago
De-dollarization won’t happen in China. Chinese government is addicted to economic growth. The legitimacy of the government depends on it. There are only 3 ways to generate growth: infrastructure investment, consumption and export. The investment approach generates too much debt and one can argue China has reached limit there. Chinese has never been able to increase the consumption as a percentage of GDP in a meaningful way. So they have to rely on export. There is no way they can grow export without dollar.

mrtksn 5y ago

It’s nothing new, it was always like that. Ask Iran, Cuba or DPRK. It makes all sense in the world, if you are not a cooperating entity you are cut off from the network and you are free to do your own thing. Obviously, you can be bullied into things that might not be in your own interest but you are still free to asses the pro’s and con’s and break of if it’s better for you. Unless you are benefiting too much from the arrangement, there’s no interest in bullying you because it’s actually a in a mutual interest to have you onboard. It’s much, much better option to settling things down through killing each other.

clove 5y ago
Off topic, but could you respond to my question in the Booking.com thread?
- mrtksn 5y ago
  Oh O.K. Let me check

outside1234 5y ago

There is no neutral. Either you oppose evil or you are implicitly for it.

mancerayder 5y ago
There's hubris in the belief that one 'knows' always and every time what good and evil are. There were always multiple sides, each on the side of Good, killing each other, since antiquity. The more modern enlightened moralist should strive to question one's information and assumptions, at all times. Oftentimes, looking back in history we see moral ambiguities. Certainly in the field of international relations the concepts of good and evil are in the realm of media commentary and politicians. Foreign policy crafters, and the literature around them, have a completely other way of talking.
- mochomocha 5y ago
  I don't think the parent meant that it's always easy to discern good from evil. The same way I don't think you believe in absolute bothsidesism. But in some extreme cases (such as current invasion of Ukraine or Nazism last century), it would be pretty hard to argue that there's not one better side. Switzerland isn't asked to pick sides in every single conflict. Starting with the clearest cut ones would be moral progress.
  - mancerayder 5y ago
    I'm obviously absolutely pro-Ukraine, especially as I'm Western European, with Western European values and with a decided belief that Western European ideas are better than what's currently being offered - what Russia for example offers - as an alternative. And while rooting for the Ukrainian side, I can't even find the Russian perspective within the sphere of information and data, other than what Russians tell me, which sounds so completely different information-wise, that I wonder if we live on the same planets. In fact I got off the phone with a Russian friend a few hours ago, and I asked their perspective but replied nothing in response. It was literally 100% inverted: that the country was fighting fascism and was conned by the U.S. due to weapons treaties in the past. So the question is NOT about morals, whose are better - it's hard to find a villain in history with an army behind them, where each individual believed in their own evil. So the question is about information asymmetry, at the very least, a foggy issue we have to get past before we talk about morals. Again, I'm about 90% confident that the Russian side aren't behaving in good faith, but I leave that 10%. And most importantly I recognize my bias, in the superiority of Western European values, which means that I'm also biased with regards to those nations having the military upper hand. Which implies that even if the situation were much more ambiguous I would likely root for the Ukrainian side. I hope that does the opposite of clear up the issue! War is rarely a matter of good and evil purely. It's a muddled world we live in.

standardUser 5y ago

During the Cold War there were two competing blocks, so many nations had a choice. The ability to "weaponize" the current system relies on the fact that there's no longer an alternative, and it's hard to imagine one emerging!

throwoutway 5y ago
CIPS is the emerging alternative
- standardUser 5y ago
  That sounds like one piece of a system. The Western-led system is comprised of dozens of international treaties and organizations, many of which China is deeply invested in.

noxer 5y ago

Neutral as in "does not participate in armed conflicts between other states". No clue where the interpretation comes from that this "neutrality" is extended to basically everything around the topic of war or military. Switzerland is a weapon export country and has been for a long long time. Neutrality for this only means they dont export to countries at war or if there is reason to believable that the recipient would sell it to countries at war or if it would fall in the hands of terrorists etc. etc. The real swiss neutrality is way broader and includes mandatory independence. So while Switzerland can join sanctions they decide and do not agree in advance to join sanctions the EU defined. It also includes military mission to promote peace. Swisscoy is the association of the Swiss Armed Forces in Kosovo. This is not against the swiss neutrality because there is no armed conflict there. The Swiss Armed Forces there are still armed for self-defense only.

antishatter 5y ago

I think you’re right and this very well be the beginning of the end of dollar hegemony. Though there aren’t yet good alternatives.

raxxorrax 5y ago

I dislike crypt currencies because of the grifters it attracts, but we also saw how the financial system was used against citizens whose assets were frozen. The central bank in the EU cannot really be called independent either. I do like the ability to shape monetary policy, but that would only go hand in hand with governments not able to just deperson people. Corporations do not offer any protection. Like on social media, if there is a legal question, the users gets banned.

MR4D 5y ago

> faster de-dollarization in China. How exactly does that work? As long as Americans send billions of dollars to them for their goods, I don’t see how they can escape it.