Stupid Shit in Kyiv

[PedroMorales]

I do now, but only because I cheated, LOL.

As for your questions, I have no objection against that currency. Better than rubles, I think.

Nah, you don't. You're a bum.

I have tried to explain things to you, in baby language so that you might understand even though baby logic is beyond you. You do not because you are a fool.

[Xpartan]

Bonus points if you know where that reference is from!

I do now, but only because I cheated, LOL.

As for your questions, I have no objection against that currency. Better than rubles, I think.

I have a stock of wealth.

Nah, you don't. You're a bum.

[Jmsuttr]

I have a stock of wealth. I do not need the flow of wealth so I give it away, all of it.

Here's a definition:

"Current usage of the term 'rentier capitalism' describes the gaining of 'rentier' income from ownership or control of assets that generate economic rents rather than from capital or labour used for production in a free competitive market."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rentier_capitalism

Your statement that you have a "stock of wealth" that attends to your needs puts you squarely in the heart of the above definition. Since you're not exchanging your labor (manual or intellectual) for income then you're literally contributing nothing of value to society.

That revelation certainly explains a lot with respect to some of the bilge you post. Someone who actually works for a living would tend to have a reality-based take on things. Thanks for enlightening the forum as to why your world view is so disjointed and disconnected.

[The Cane]

Marene La Pine is the closest she has been to the French presidency but that doesn't mean zilch.

Think of it this way: With a brillant young QB and WR, the Buffalo Bills are the closest they have been to winning the Super Bowl.

She's neither brilliant nor young. Persistent maybe. But not brilliant or young!

[PedroMorales]

Ie the lowest form of human life on the planet.

Your argument (sic) is them ore than 50% of the world the US gangster regime have under sanctions should fuck off to Russia even though you, being American, are on stolen land and therefore belong nowhere. You are, in other words, a bum.

And a stupid one. I have a stock of wealth. I do not need the flow of wealth so I give it away, all of it.

See, you are American. That means you are stupid and prone to violence and crime.

Now fuck off back to your American Politics thread.

And such a stupid thread it is. American wankers screaming at each other as immigrants spit roast their obese women.

So, not only are you a delusional crackpot, you're also a bum.

Figures.

[Reef LostCause]

Marine LE Pen leads a Russian-sympathizing political bloc that is within reach of the French presidency; Marine Le Pen is the closest she has been to the French presidency:
He wins some and loses some!

Marene La Pine is the closest she has been to the French presidency but that doesn't mean zilch.

Think of it this way: With a brillant young QB and WR, the Buffalo Bills are the closest they have been to winning the Super Bowl.

[Jmsuttr]

They can accept Martian dirhams for what I care. No one is paying in rubles except his buddy Orban.

Bonus points if you know where that reference is from!

[Jmsuttr]

It's here in the Title https://www.politico.com/newsletters...nning-00024373.

Whizzing through sources, the above caught my attention and read it more than once.

;If you think Russia isn't winning from its invasion of Ukraine, consider this: Moscow's monthly gas export receipts have tripled from a year ago; Marine LE Pen leads a Russian-sympathizing political bloc that is within reach of the French presidency; and from today, Western leaders will once again start arriving in Moscow to court President Vladimir Putin into a Ukraine settlement.

In other words: You can win even when you're being humiliated on the battlefield.

On the European front, Putin's supporters win elections in Hungary & Serbia https://edition.cnn.com europe h.

I'm doubtful LE Pen will win in France. She made it to the 2nd round in 2017, was polling less than Macron at that time, and lost. She's now made it to the 2nd round again, it's a similar situation to that in 2017, and I'll be surprised if the outcome isn't the same.

Predicting a winner at this point is a fool's errand, of course, but even if she wins she'll be constrained by France's membership in the EU. Hungary's Orban has already encountered similar constraints.

One possible LE Pen victory scenario is that she could certainly set a Frexit in motion. That would free France from EU constraints, but that's a years-long process even assuming she has enough support. Unless and until that happens, any friendly overtures toward Russia would have to conform to EU restrictions.

Politico, CNN, and The Times are certainly entitled to their predictions. But they're not immune to the pitfalls that come with that territory, which I detailed in my response to Golfinho.

[The Cane]

Pull your head out of your ass and look around at where you are.

That's asking a lot! Don't you think? LOL!

[Xpartan]

They will accept only rubles for their oil and gas -- so far.

They can accept Martian dirhams for what I care. No one is paying in rubles except his buddy Orban.

Then WTF are you doing on this website? It's one thing to post your pro-Russia political thoughts, but you are trolling American men who travel abroad to meet foreign women on here the International Sex Guide of all places.

Pull your head out of your ass and look around at where you are.

Come on, be realistic. You're asking him to perform an impossible physical exercise.

[Jmsuttr]

The stock answer in context of the future of the dollar for years has been, 'Yes, long-term it's all bad, but there's no place else to go. ' Anyone who's spent anytime in the industry knows this. And now we've reached the point where it's the linchpin openly behind US foreign policy. Question is will this battle with Russia lead to the endgame.

How it came to this should be general knowledge. See Michael Hudson, Super Imperialism (updated from your edition back in undergraduate economics).

Or his take on current situation: https://michael-hudson.com/category/articles/.

Of course Putin needs income, which is why he's not giving oil to belligerents that have frozen Russia's accounts. Sanctions have blowback -- in this case so obvious it can only be assumed to have been intentional to, as like the Nuland woman said, eff the E. You. Meanwhile, China will buy Russian oil and gas and pay in yuan which won't be frozen (stolen). The US confiscated Venezuela's foreign holdings, and they even stole poor Afghanistan's. And now Russia's..

Is that they rely on multiple variables that may not play out in the ways envisioned by the predictive models. There are plenty of opinions out there, and I'm happy to let them argue the issues in their ivory towers. And predictions about the impending demise of the US are the most popular of all.

I'm much more interested in the pragmatic, empirical, and observable. The plain fact of the matter is that, prior to the invasion, Russia had a higher position in the world, politically and economically, than it does now. No matter how the war turns out, Putin has shown himself to be a barbaric war criminal. There's no coming back from that. And there's no coming back from the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of young Russians who have fled to make a future elsewhere.

Similarly, the image of a strong Russian military has been exposed and destroyed. Sure, Russia has their Soviet-legacy nukes, but their conventional forces have been exposed as a paper tiger. That's one reason why, IMO, Sweden and Finland are unmoved by Russian threats over NATO membership.

War is an uncertain and dynamic beast. Looking at a snapshot in time, or even a series of snapshots, and trying to extrapolate a prediction, is a tricky business. The sanctions regime, and any effects thereof, is similarly a dynamic beast. I find predictions as to who will prevail in the end, and how things will turn out, to be mostly exercises in vanity by people anxious to show off how much they know. And I generally find them to be reluctant to admit how much is unknown and how easily something that comes out of left field could screw up their predictions.

Here's just one example: All of the discussions I've seen re sanctions have assumed that China will continue to support Russia. What if that changes? I'm not saying it will, but I would observe that China isn't in a happy place right now, with having to lock down Shanghai (plus other cities, ports, factories, etc.) in their efforts to keep COVID from wreaking havoc. So, while I'm not predicting, I can envision a scenario in which a combination of China's vulnerabilities and Western pressures could have a material impact on support for Russia. My sole reason for laying out this scenario is to point out the hubris of those who make predictions without accounting for, or even discussing, variables that would skewer their theories.

It is, however, possible to lay out possible scenarios and, with an appropriate degree of humility, point out the rough probabilities of each one. But such discussions should also contain plenty of caveats as to how things could drastically change if the landscape of variables shift.

For example, I've continued to assert that there's unlikely to be any scenario in which Russia truly wins. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that they can occupy much or even all of Ukraine. That is likely to be a Pyrrhic victory as it's clear the Ukrainians don't see Russia as a liberator and don't want to be occupied or assimilated. Russia would be viewed as an aggressive occupier, perhaps having to brutally suppress insurgents, and the sanctions regime would continue.

Meanwhile, since oil and gas are fungible, most of Russia's former energy dependents will have switched, or be actively looking to switch, to other suppliers. The recent deal Italy signed with Algeria is a case in point. That would be a permanent loss of income for Russia and a corresponding reduction in leverage.

Again, I'm not in the prediction business and, historically speaking, most people who thought they had it all figured out ended up being wrong more often than right. But I am in the business of making observations. And one clear observation is that the state of Russia today is weaker than the state of Russia before February 24th. It's hard for me to see how a weakened Russia, having been devalued on a number of fronts, turns these deficits into a winning position. Much like chess, at some point the loss of material + poor positioning = a loss. I think Russia will play to the last pawn, unless something happens internally to tip over the king, but I find arguments for a Russian win to be singularly unconvincing.

[Xpartan]

Guess what. I give away 100% of what I earn, all of it.

So, not only are you a delusional crackpot, you're also a bum.

Figures.

[WyattEarp]

Then WTF are you doing on this website? It's one thing to post your pro-Russia political thoughts, but you are trolling American men who travel abroad to meet foreign women on here the International Sex Guide of all places.

Pull your head out of your ass and look around at where you are.

Uncharacteristically strong words from me on social media. However, I think you owe the entire Board an apology.

[WyattEarp]

About the dollar, I'm certainly not a general defender of US monetary or economic policies (although I'm not an indiscriminate basher of same), but the relevant question with respect to dollar dominance is what currency (ies) are realistic candidates to replace it? Any such currency would need to be backed by a country willing to endure the Reserve Currency Paradox (aka Triffin's Dilemma).

https://www.investopedia.com/financi...urrencies.aspx

According to that concept, a reserve currency's issuing country needs to accept a permanent trade deficit condition. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware of any sizeable world economy, other than the US, that perennially runs a trade deficit. So, while it's always in fashion to bash the dollar, it's hard to see what will move the needle in any substantial way.

This is kind of a follow-up to my last post regarding global trade and currency.

Jmsuttr, I was impressed that you brought up the Triffin Dilemma. Most financial journalists have no clue what this well-accepted economic principle is. It's very common to generalize that the Dollar's reserve currency status is purely a benefit. It's often brought up in anti-American rhetoric as an unfair geopolitical advantage.

For obvious reasons, Wall Street is one benefactor of surplus Dollars accumulated around the globe and directed back to the United States assets. Wall Street is an important lobby for policies that protect the Dollar as a reserve currency.

For similar reasons as the Dollar, the British Pound acts a reserve currency in a smaller degree of magnitude. For the size of its economy, the you. K. Runs fairly large trade deficits perennially to absorb the inflow of capital from around the world. You. K. Policies protect capital rights and the free movement of capital in and out of the country.

[WyattEarp]

It's too soon to tell how this will play out. The Russians have pegged the ruble to gold. They will accept only rubles for their oil and gas -- so far. Whether they extend this to accept only rubles for all their exports and move to make their ruble an asset backed currency remains to be seen. When Quaddafi made a similar move, the USA Had no answer in response except to take him out. Libya, of course, had no nuclear arsenal.

The USA Meanwhile has been shorting gold for years, and has a currency backed by -- nothing. Well, backed by its military and its ability to control the oil market via the petro dollar. For how much longer is this strategy sustainable? Remains to be seen, however it is pure hubris to think artificially propping up the dollar is an act of strength.

This is actually a fairly good take, but only half the story. I've heard some of this with young tech guys who trade and hold crypto. Basically, their prognosis is that the Mideast oil producers will eventually refuse the Dollar as payment and cryptocurrency will be validated as a major global currency.

It misses the bigger issue. How do chronic trade surpluses eventually wind their way through the global economy and converted into reserve assets? The medium of exchange is not really important from an economic perspective. Whether one talks about paying in Gold or Bitcoin, some exporter has to inevitably circulate the Dollars, Euro, Yen, Renminbi back into their respective countries. If Saudi Arabia only accepts Bitcoin, a USA Petro enterprise has to buy Bitcoin to buy Saudi oil. Even if the Saudis choose to hold Bitcoin, the party selling Bitcoin has to direct their Dollars. So Dollars must keep circulating in the global economy until they find their way back into imports from the United States, assets domiciled in the United States or Treasuries.

China and the Mideast oil producers tend to accumulate United States assets and treasuries to sterilize their chronic trade surpluses. Trade surpluses generally find their way back to countries with political stability, strong laws protecting capital and its free movement. Freezing Russian assets presents a new precedence.

Which brings us to the Russians accepting Chinese Renminbi for oil and gas. In the short-run, the Chinese will likely allow the Russians to hold Renminbi reserves. More likely the Chinese will prefer to sell them goods. Believe me for those of us who have studied the global trade system and balance of trade mechanisms, China does not currently want to be a reserve currency and they are not prepared to do so. One of the big things is that the Chinese would have to eliminate their strict capital controls. See Jmsuttr's note about the Triffin Dilemma. Contrary to popular belief, hosting a reserve currency presents difficult economic challenges.