Hacker News Reader

Comment by sigmaprimus | Hacker News Reader

I find it amazing how so many people don't know that the IMF is an NGO made up of a few wealthy people.

I suspect the "Financial System" being referred to is the SWIFT system and chances are in the next few years it will be replaced by a new Sino-Russian system backed by Saudi oil.

No cyber attacks will be needed to bring SWIFT down, just a few too many sanctions being wielded like cudgels by over eager bureaucrats trying to impose their "Morality" on the rest of the world.

I suppose it is possible that is the point, they want to be prepared for the backlash sure to follow when the Greenback is no longer the reserve currency.

View on HN

> and chances are in the next few years it will be replaced by a new Sino-Russian system backed by Saudi oil.

Who will they trade with? Themselves? Will Saudi Arabia join in when it means the US abandons them, stops selling weapons, and takes other punitive economic measures? Cryptocurrency is a much greater "threat" to these systems, but even then it's more of a threat to countries with poor quality or unstable currencies.

> when the Greenback is no longer the reserve currency.

It's just a fancy title. Dollar is the reserve currency, but Euro, Pound, Yen, etc. are all reserve currencies too. It's not some sort of designation bestowed upon the dollar from which the downfall of America will lead to it losing such status, it's just what central banks and governments hold in reserve. If the US dollar loses market share (if you'll allow here), it'll probably drive up the value of dollars since the US federal reserve no longer has to print dollars to help maintain global liquidity. The whole RESERVE CURRENCY thing is just FUD.

>>>Will Saudi Arabia join in when it means the US abandons them...

The Saudis have already entered a mutual defense pact with Russia

>>>It's just a fancy title. Dollar is the reserve currency, but Euro, Pound, Yen, etc...

Actually it isn't, that is why sanctions work so well, Russia and China just entered into an agreement to trade directly between themselves without converting to USD first. It wont be long before Syria, Iran, North Korea, Argentina, Cuba and several African nations join the fray. Not to mention a large number of other out of favor political leaders that are sick of US led regime change or coup attempts constantly testing them..Think Bolsonaro, Duterte, Aung San Suu Kyi.

These are the countries that hold the resources needed for a productive world and soon enough the rest of the world, including the West will be forced to follow them into an new non US hegemonic world, regardless of the number of guns and bombs Uncle Sam has.

Yeah. But who will China sell its goods to? Last I checked, Russia has 144M people and EU / US / Japan have 1B+. Of course, China has a large domestic market but exports are still ~20% of GDP for them.

The other side of that coin is who will the West buy their goods from, I would rather be in the position of having too much to sell than not enough to buy.

The EU is already dependent on Russian natural gas and middle eastern oil so they will be forced to accept the new trade rules even if under protest.

There is a possibility that the commonwealth countries along with the US might be able to put up a good fight but the current state of anti colonial rhetoric from within most commonwealth countries will most likely push the current leaders of these countries out of power and one by one they will join the rest of the world...The sun has been setting on the British Empire for a while now.

> The other side of that coin is who will the West buy their goods from

Themselves? Allied nations? Other countries around the world? Your entire discussion centers around this idea that all resources and all things are made in these non-western countries. It's a faulty assumption. China is dependent on imports as well - remember the rolling blackouts shutting down factories in China when they stopped coal imports to teach Australia a lesson and then Australia just sold the coal elsewhere? [1]

Europe is "dependent" on Russian gas but those who are in charge in Russia really like that European money and their vacation homes. Long-term Europe is just fine here because they can just build alternative energy sources (warming planet may make much of Europe even less dependent on Russian natural gas for heating). It doesn't help them today but if the costs are too high there becomes a point that it's either not worth it, or liquified natural gas products from the US become attractive. It should go without saying that the oligarchs in Russia who run these companies... like not having their villas in London confiscated due to "sanctions". There's an upper limit on the maximum pain (outside of actual war) that either will inflict upon the other.

The EU dependency on Russian gas thing is yet another overly simplified boogeyman like the US Dollar Reserve Currency status. What is actually concerning is Ukraine and how serious Putin is about invading and starting a war and whether or not he stops at Ukraine or does something drastic. I don't think the EU will be able to coordinate an effective military response which may lead to the block dissolving, especially if Putin does something crazy like invade Poland or some NATO country that isn't "important" - will the West really go to war? If Putin gambles here I don't think nukes will fly. So now Russia gets to fight a conventional war in Europe without existential risk - it's a great move for him geopolitically and strategically. EU member states such as France and Germany (the former is the only one that appears to have the ability to even fight) would basically go into a "save yourself" mode and start acting independently when push comes to shove. Outside of the UK most of the rest of the EU is far too small or useless to do anything. Americans are much more willing to fight in Europe than Italians or Spaniards are and I don't think we'd even send ground troops unless we're in an actual World War III scenario which nobody in the West wants to engage in, hence the stronger Russian upper hand here. Though I wouldn't put it past the U.S. to take a chance to really screw with Russia here in the meantime. [2]

I wonder how that happened. Interesting coincidental timing.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/05/china-power-supply-crunch-re...

[2] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10331843/New-Russia...

I guess time will tell...;TLDR

one of us will be eating crow soon enough.

Interesting to see some familiar topics here, I thought I was the only one.

You may be interested to know that some time in the last decade the Russians clearly signalled they would be prepared to use nuclear weapons in Europe. Brilliant play since they know the US sentiment around preparedness to enter another conflict that isn’t theirs.

By simply signalling they forced the US to consider other options hence the decisions to deploy tactical nuclear capabilities not subject to the same rules as strategic nuclear weapons. And last I heard they were deploying these tactical capabilities to a sub class also responsible for SSG.

I’m very curious to understand whether Russian simply signalling in the way that they did has caused the US to strategically compromise their second strike guarantee. That would mean that by simply introducing the idea they have let the US take the mutually assured destruction elements off the table that made it so risky to begin with.

Yea definitely interesting to think about. A couple of discussion points:

* To your point (let me know if you disagree) I think that the MAD concept can be overcome and we'll see countries figure out strategis around it. What if you had World War III and... just nobody fired the nukes? New York City is bombed, Moscow is invaded, whatever and the countries just don't do the doomsday? What if we've taken MAD for granted and it turns out it's not even on the table?

* > Brilliant play since they know the US sentiment around preparedness to enter another conflict that isn’t theirs

Many wars and conflicts begin because of miscalculations. I think on Putin's part for Russia this could be one of those. I mentioned this in another thread but the U.S. just spent 20 years at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, people dying, IEDs, terrorists, all of that stuff and if you turned the TV off you'd have no idea these wars were going on. America spent 20 years doing this stuff in two countries and not a single American day-to-day really gave a crap. While it may be the case that America is not willing to fight in Eastern Europe, I think that this is one of those potential miscalculations and it's certainly an unknown variable. Hell, even if the American people were not being drafted the US military is certainly actively strong enough to go toe-to-toe with Russia or anyone so we could yet again have a military at war but not a people. Just some food for thought. Even with Biden (smartly IMO) actually getting us out of Afghanistan, the left and the right were crowing about it. Might be more willingness to fight then one might think and this could lead the U.S. to another direct conflict with Russia this decade. [1]

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/world/middleeast/american...

> the IMF is an NGO made up of a few wealthy people.

I was under the impression that it is an international organisation that is backed by most countries.

Wikipedia calls it "an international financial institution consisting of 190 countries" and says it "came into formal existence in 1945 with 29 member countries"

Even though it had a few wealthy founders, one of which is John Maynard Keynes, probably one of the most well known economists, I wouldn't describe the IMF as "an NGO made up of a few wealthy people".

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Monetary_Fund

Fair enough, the IMF itself is an international construct funded by world governments but it's directors and governors are appointed positions held by individuals chosen by a few wealthy individuals. It is not a government organization just like the US Federal Reserve Bank which also gets mistaken for a government organization.

Thank you. That seems to be the case indeed. And it’s important to be aware of the potential agency issues.

Russia and China both are accumulating a lot more gold than previously. They can go to a gold backed digital currency pretty reliably at this point. China's been testing digital yuan already, including some nice restrictions that will benefit socialist/communist control - restriction of what certain digital yuan can buy, as well as time-expiring money. Both would increase peoples needs on the state and their short term happiness - they'll feel "richer" able to buy nicer meals or go on vacations, but both would be able to restrict someone from saving or becoming too successful. We'll likely see these same ideas implemented in the CBDCs that roll out in the west.

"Oil backed" makes less sense, IMO.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com