Hacker News Reader

Comment by JamesBarney | Hacker News Reader

I don't necessarily think this is true. There are a ton of disadvantages to closing yourself off to the world, and unless you're planning an invasion it doesn't make sense to pay that cost.

View on HN

I'm not saying countries will leave SWIFT in mass, but they will prioritize joining and developing alternatives. There's a lot of hunger to absorb natural resources and fertilizers [1] [2] from Russia and Belarus, so countries will find a way to do it, and once it's in place it will be user for other transactions and be a permanent alternative.

[1] https://blog.nationalbulkbag.com/produce-packaging/how-is-th...

[2] https://investingnews.com/daily/resource-investing/agricultu...

Negotiations are won by those with the least to lose. Russia's economy is predominately oil and gas based, which the world is rapidly transitioning away from, so their remaining economic activity requires the rest of the world more than the rest of the world requires Russia.

Maybe in a few decades. But for today, we still need it to make tiny booms in little metal boxes to move big boxes with rubber tubes.

The more painful it is in the short term, the faster we get to an oil free (realistically, a greatly reduced oil future) future. No one is getting off of cheap oil. It should be as painful as possible to use petroleum.

Society doesn't work like that especially when you're talking about a commodity (energy) that fairly directly affects the quality of life of everyone on the planet.

Make it too painful and you'll get a "people who want an oil free future" free future. History is littered with stories of autocrats who tried to push society too far forward too fast. Society is an amorphous blob that simply responds to inputs. It doesn't care that you have good intentions.

Hand waving about a sticks based policy makes for a great circle jerk but in the real world you need carrots, political will, consensus, etc. to go with the sticks or you are doomed to failure.

Don’t forget about plastic!

I would like you to do a thought exercise about how many petroleum-based products you use and how your life would be affected if the supply of oil was severely limited or the price went up even more than it already has since 2020.

Having kids who I am borrowing the planet from, I am happy to change my life or pay more to reduce my petroleum consumption as close to zero as possible. Oil can go to $200/barrel, even more. Does it suck the entire species has been borrowing on energy credit for the last 120 years? Absolutely. Junkie has to kick a habit eventually if they want to survive, and we as a species are a junkie addicted to cheap fossil fuels, and withdrawal is going to be admittedly painful.

Business as usual is just not an option, and the cost of everything will rise as energy deleveraging occurs and the true costs are paid. And so, again, I support whatever mechanisms have second order effects of destroying demand for fossil fuels.

I unfortunately fear the next generation will pay the price in the form of a fucked climate and high energy prices.

>Negotiations are won by those with the least to lose.

Not in this (or many) cases. If you're implying Russia has the least to lose and will somehow win some banking negotiation, they will simply get cut out of markets.

"Least to lose" winning only happens if the "least to lose" party also has more negotiating power. The Russian economy, as markets pretty clearly show, has lost.

I was implying that Russia had the most to lose (with an export economy heavily weighted to a single sector), and as you mention, they lost.

The actual mechanism (SWIFT) used to enforce the sanctions does not really matter. The damage comes from being cut off from western markets and capital. If alternatives are adopted then countries wishing to impose sanctions could simply prohibit their institutions from using the system.

Anyone buying most anything from Belarus or Russia is funding Russia's war effort.

Saudi Arabia refusing to release more oil into global supply keeps prices high and indirectly results in Russia profiting more from each petrol sale.

Europeans buying energy from Russia are helping Russia pay to bomb Ukrainians.

It doesn't matter what is intended. The effect is it helps Russia fund this and future operations.

Lets not forget about the fed that is printing trillions that are being used to bid up oil prices. It is easy to blame saudis here but in this case the fed is doing more damage.

What is the process by which this happens?

1. Print money 2. Use said money to bid oil prices up

Heh, I hear ya, I thought there might be a nasty oil specific mechanism I didn't know of.

That makes 0 sense. Why would the printed money cause specifically oil to go up and not everything else along with it? And if everything else goes up, then it doesn't matter.

You found something that did not go up?

Salary!

Wrong.

oil prices rising so fast here is partly caused by self-sanctioning of western buyers - there are no bids for russian oil. they can't sell even at a discount. this is a SHTF situation around the world.

Is there any oil-exporting country that’s not invading another country? Maybe Norway, and Venezuela (which is also sanctioned by the West)?

As other people were writing here: it does not matter the name of the system they cut off Russia or any other aggressor. Russia and Belarus can develop their own SWIFT like system. What it matters is EU/USA saying to their economies: do not trade* with Russia. The name of the system where this is implemented is irrelevant!

Countries aren't going to leave swift because I bet 99% of them don't have any aims to be doing invasions anytime soon.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com