5 ms·

> This is the second part of a series on the weaponisation of finance I've been thinking about this right from the start. 6 August 1945 changed the world fore

> This is the second part of a series on the weaponisation of finance I've been thinking about this right from the start. 6 August 1945 changed the world forever. After Hiroshima global politics, national identities and the arms industry changed. Are we actually dealing with a new weapon? After 2022 will we still be in the same world where coordinated trade and financial information systems are weaponised against countries, or perhaps companies or individuals? What are the civilian casualties? (Think of Iraq-I sanctions did to millions of Iraqis). What will be the blowback? What happens if this proliferates into a sort of world trade war? Aren't banks in some sense supposed to be neutral? If not, won't banks themselves become targets, and what happens when retaliation takes out HSBC, Chase or Lloyds?

mzs 5y ago
Part one covers how this has been used since the '50s and was ramped-up over the last 20 years.
zardo 5y ago
> 6 August 1945 changed the world forever. After Hiroshima global politics, national identities and the arms industry changed. Are we actually dealing with a new weapon? I'm sure banks were not neutral during WWII. If you were a US bank funding the Japanese Navy I expect you would at the least get a call from FDR asking you to stop and reminding you what the punishment is for a treason conviction.
everforward 5y ago
I think this traces its roots much farther back than the atomic bomb. At it's heart, weaponized finance is just a re-envisioning of a siege or blockade for the 21st century. The response will likely be similar. Stockpile valuable resources when you can, bring the important jobs inside the castle walls (i.e. onshoring in important verticals), keep powerful friends around that can help break the siege. I think the global economy is going to become less intertwined. There's going to be a strong preference for onshoring where possible, and buying from allies where it's not. I would expect to see a lot more anti-China rhetoric in the US and maybe EU, and maybe some anti-US rhetoric in EU. It's going to be of strategic importance to have an economy that is reasonably self-sufficient. Not entirely, but enough that the whole thing doesn't flop over from a month of sanctions.

mzs 5y ago

Part one covers how this has been used since the '50s and was ramped-up over the last 20 years.

zardo 5y ago

> 6 August 1945 changed the world forever. After Hiroshima global politics, national identities and the arms industry changed. Are we actually dealing with a new weapon? I'm sure banks were not neutral during WWII. If you were a US bank funding the Japanese Navy I expect you would at the least get a call from FDR asking you to stop and reminding you what the punishment is for a treason conviction.

everforward 5y ago

I think this traces its roots much farther back than the atomic bomb. At it's heart, weaponized finance is just a re-envisioning of a siege or blockade for the 21st century. The response will likely be similar. Stockpile valuable resources when you can, bring the important jobs inside the castle walls (i.e. onshoring in important verticals), keep powerful friends around that can help break the siege. I think the global economy is going to become less intertwined. There's going to be a strong preference for onshoring where possible, and buying from allies where it's not. I would expect to see a lot more anti-China rhetoric in the US and maybe EU, and maybe some anti-US rhetoric in EU. It's going to be of strategic importance to have an economy that is reasonably self-sufficient. Not entirely, but enough that the whole thing doesn't flop over from a month of sanctions.