https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_pa...
China is a large economy but it's nothing like the dominant force many people seem to think. China is 16% of US trade, 22% of EU trade, 22% of Japan's trade, 22% of South Korea's trade, etc... the numbers are the same for just about everyone.
If you add up all the West-aligned countries (including Vietnam, Philippines, etc - they're already in a cold war with China over the South China Sea), you're looking at 80-90% of China's total trade volume.
Without some kind of major political split in the dollarized world, China just doesn't have that kind of leverage. We're currently seeing the opposite of that split.
I'm not sure where you get this idea that they are US aligned. This is specifically against their policy. They play a very balanced game as they should given their big neighbour...
https://thediplomat.com/2019/01/vietnams-defense-policy-of-n...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-vietnam-protests-idUSKBN1...
You seem to think of those percentage as small - they represent the largest trading partner of each of those country/entity.
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/t...
-----
A guy walking along the beach finds a bottle. He pulls out the cork, and a genie appears and tells him he has three wishes. "But," the genie says, "I have to warn you, whatever you receive, your worst enemy will get twice as much as you."
"OK," says the guy, "first, I want ten million dollars." The genie grants the wish and reminds him that his worst enemy now has twenty million dollars.
"Next wish, I want a thirty-room mansion in the Bahamas." The genie builds the mansion for him, and lets him know that his worst enemy now has a home twice as big.
"Fine. For the last wish," the guy picks up a big stick and hands it to the genie, "beat me HALF to death."
-----
The countries that trade with China can survive 15-25% of their trade evaporating, albeit with some pain. Maybe less than we think - most of what China exports is available from other nations. On the other hand, China's economy cannot weather 80% of its trade market disappearing.
I certainly hope it never comes to this. Military adventurism in Taiwan could trigger it. Mass civilian casualties in Ukraine could trigger more severe "no trade with anyone that trades with Russia" sanctions. I'd like to think that the Chinese would be just as disgusted as we would be and join the coalition voluntarily, but who knows.
This is true in food, this is true in semiconductors.
This is true in food, this is true in semiconductors.
I say that the current currency and banking sanctions are a one use tool - it is effective in the short term at hurting the russian economy, but the west will be paying a future price for it, one where the west's currency and institutions are trusted less than it would have been had they not done this.
You can argue that these sanctions are preferable to war. After all, any war with russia and the west will be nuclear, without a doubt. So the west is choose the lesser of two evils to deploy. But i'm not so sure that nuclear war is not averted.
Based on what we see today, what would be the economic consequences for that kind of adventurism? Who wants to hold the currency of a nation that is one jingoistic decision away from receiving the Russia treatment?
That said, I do think the world's strong reaction to Russia - whether or not it ultimately makes a difference in Ukraine - has made the Taiwanese a lot safer. Unlike Putin, the CCP does seem to care about China's place in the world.
How about % of goods. How many % of our everyday goods are produced in China? Can we even live a normal life if China stop sending those products to us for a week, a month?
My phone was made in Vietnam. My solar panels were made in Taiwan. My automobile was made in Japan. My clothes were made in Bangladesh. My lumber comes from Canada. My food comes domestically (the tomatoes are from Mexico, though that will change in a couple months). I can't tell where my laptop was made, but there are plenty of options from Korea and Taiwan.
And I'm by no means anti-China. I like cheap flashlights and wrenches like everyone, but almost everything has alternative sources. If I had to go China-free, maybe I'd have the equivalent of 10% less disposable income? I doubt it would be even that much.
Imagine kicking China out of Swift as did to Russia. Dollar is doomed and inflation is going beyond the roof.
I don't understand how more people are not catching up to this simple fact that central bank "digital currencies" are nothing more than a by-pass of distributed private banking (brick and mortar + online banks). It's just moving more levers closer to central authorities.
It is especially towards those part of the ISO 20022 [0] standard which the technologies will be based on some cryptocurrency technologies like Stellar [1][2], XRPL [3][4], Algorand, etc.
[0] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/iso-20022-cryptos-5-compliant...
[1] https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2021/12/14/ukraine-commercia...
[2] https://resources.stellar.org/stellar-for-cbdcs
[3] https://ripple.com/insights/bhutan-advances-financial-inclus...
[4] https://ripple.com/insights/ripple-joins-the-digital-pound-f...
Those accounts are still annoymous to both parties in transaction, not to the central bank. I would say it's much more annoymous than a traditional account, a credit card or debit card, but probably not as annoymous as cash.
Also, it's naturally fee-free, you don't pay ridiculous account maintenance or transaction fee.
They are not in a position to demand anything because if they do, the dependency will soon be resolved. Europe is already working with the assumption that this is not future-proof, so alternatives will be found, rendering any demand useless.
Not even almighty China can lay heavy "demands" on the West or build dominant international alternatives. China needs the world far more than the world needs China. Just a few decades ago, we didn't depend on anything coming from China. We can dial that back.
The opposite is not true. China has a useless geography making them heavily dependent on many external geographies just to acquire the very basics to sustain their population.
The world wants the western model, even if imperfect. People migrate to the west, nobody wants to live in Russia or China. When given a choice, every former Soviet territory wants to join the EU, not Russia. I think that says enough.
>China needs the world far more than the world needs China. Just a few decades ago, we didn't depend on anything coming from China. We can dial that back. A lot changes in decades, dialing back will take decades in the mean time there's mutual dependancy but PRC along with US are least dependant major economies in terms of trade:gdp and indigenous production. PRC hasnt been export driven for a while. China needs US and US needs China for the foreseeable future, neither needs anyone else.
> China has a useless geography As does most of west, OECD countries that can be self sufficient in energy is like US/CA/NO/NX. Most of west EU apart from France imports net calories. Granted there's major western producers for both but also many none west producers especially for critical minerals for PRC to tap. It's an issue if there's war when SLOCs are blocaded. But that's war and PRC produces enough of almost everything domestically for indefinite war economy. PRC is not Japan who needs to supply reources outside to maintain war economy. Of course no one is as blessed as US.
> world wants the western model Democracy index is declining globally, including in post soviet states, majority of whom are not even flawed democracies. Countries seem to be converging more towards PRC model if anything, including recent EU censorship and west broadly re-adopting PRC tier industrial policy.
> People migrate to the west Rich west with migration driven economies good at brain draining sure, but MENA authoritarian states get plenty of expats as well.
>former Soviet territory wants to join the EU For security not governance model. They've remained authoritaran/hybrid and general trend on democracy index in last few years have been decline.
However, at this point, China is extremely dependent on imports of commodities including food and other raw materials.
The Russian stock market still hasn't even opened this week. They are basically going to have to start over economically. They are not going to build back the same way as they did the past 20 years. We have basically left them no choice other than to build back with China.
I think history will view this decision to completely cut them off from the Western financial system as a huge mistake. A completely myopic decision.
-- Typically when I've seen authoritarian things it's authoritarian across most, but nice little exceptions for the "special" people.
There's no such thing as a backdoor for some limited group of people. If there's a backdoor then it's for anyone who can discover it and chooses to use it. This is the flaw in the thinking of every single politician who ever talks about encryption and crypto. You can't compromise the security in something and expect it to remain a secret. Things are either secure by design, or they're not secure.
This wouldn’t be done at the protocol level, in the same way one can get around TLS via MITM without sabotaging the encryption algorithms.
Still... I think the speculative scenario is unlikely. I myself am speculating massively here. But what I think is far more likely to happen with respect to crypto is that an international agreement akin to the Bretton Woods System is negotiated that mandates central banks hold a store of value such as Bitcoin. This will provide some foundation of measure for all currencies to be valued against. But the current financial system layer on top will remain intact.
Note, I'm an early Bitcoin hodler and have remained strongly suspicious of Putin's interest in Ethereum with agreements between the foundation and VEB like this one (https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2017/08/31/misunderstanding...), its handling of the DAO event, and Eth2.0's coincidental timing (its delays too) with the Ukraine invasion.
My somewhat speculative paranoia follows, but I strongly suspect Ethereum will NOT play a part in this new system because of the above issues. I think Putin calculated that Ethereum might be a viable alternative to a widespread financial system replacement that could have provided a means of bypassing any sanctions, which is why he went ahead with the Ukraine invasion.
In the end, if this Bretton Woods 2.0 system comes into effect, bitcoin will have failed to become the libertarian financial tool many people hoped it would. But its utility as a store of value can't be ignored and so it will have been co-opted/integrated into the existing financial system. It'll be another example of techno-utopianism naiveté like the 90s style vision of the web.
I also think there will be digital dollars issued by central banks. In that respect, I don't see Bitcoin being used for day to day financial transactions. I see it being used as a backing value store for these digital dollars though.
I think economists and central banks throughout the world are reluctantly coming to grips with the effects of going off Bretton Woods:
- There is more influence over financial cycles so they can be smoothed over to help with the functioning of day to day life. This is desirable.
- The above influence has gone too far and has created an epic asset bubble and economic disparity that is even concerning to many of the world's most powerful and wealthy (i.e., it's creating an existential risk to them). Obviously this is undesirable and even worse, the central banks have no potential solutions to deal with this in their existing toolchain.
Why do I think bitcoin will win out? Somewhat for the same reasons I'm skeptical of that backdoor scenario. The major national governments have little trust amongst themselves, this trust is getting worse, and we're seeing an adversarial situation play out.
- China and some other economies outside the G7 want off of the USD as a reserve currency
- The G7 are reluctant to accept a world in which China exerts the financial influence they give up
All will realize something in the world's financial system has to change and for the sake of world peace a new arrangement is worth a shot. But none of these adversaries trust each other in such a way that a nationally derived crypto would be acceptable as the basis for a value backing store. Furthermore, existing assets will inherently be untrustworthy too because they're in a bubble. Nobody knows the true value of a house any more. Step in crypto...
- I don't think it will be Ethereum because as I said, reputation has been tarnished (there may be Russian influence). But it also tries to do too much and that may be undesirable for a value backing store.
- I think it will end up being Bitcoin simply because it's a lot more simple. It does less. And furthermore, nobody really knows who invented it so it is inherently not tied to any given nation. Or at least there's plausible deniability about it having been invented by a particular state.
- Other cryptos are distant runners up to these two main players so I don't see any other viable alternatives
Bitcoin is a speculative asset like housing and used cars currently are in 2022. But the similarities end there. All the other speculative asset classes have been triggered precisely due to quantitative easing policies. Their current prices have been derived from this fiscal policy. As ridiculous as it sounds, bitcoin’s price is quite literally a bet against the future performance of these world currencies. As the speculative asset classes have their foundation in current fiscal policy, Bitcoin is a bet against their performance too.
Bitcoin has minimal carrying costs as an asset. The same can’t be true of other speculative assets like homes which have become financial instruments due to investors pouring their wealth into anything besides currencies in a desperate attempt to hold value over time. In many countries now, and increasingly so, the only way to profit off housing is through appreciation. Rent will not cover the carrying costs of the mortgages taken out against these homes. These assets have entered bubble territory, decoupling from any rational metric like average incomes.
Holding Bitcoin costs essentially nothing. Sure, there are idiots who invested through leverage. But there are many more who haven’t who can afford to hold on through all sorts of adversity. That makes it quite unlike these other speculative assets.
As a backing store for central banks, it holds value because it’s auditable. Bretton Woods fell apart in no small part due to countries becoming sceptical that other countries actually held the gold they said they did. The amount of Bitcoin each central bank holds would easily be auditable by others and that makes it valuable.
It only sounds foolish because we are used to thinking of measuring Bitcoin against the dollar. Rather, view the amount of Bitcoin each central bank would hold as an auditable hash of all its assets. Then view the digital currencies these central banks would issue as denominated in fractional units of this.
In the world where we value Bitcoin against USD, it sounds foolish because we don’t have enough Bitcoin to act as a foundation for all of it. But what if we have too much money in the world? Bitcoin’s fixed 21 million limit provides a means of truly measuring the rate at which currencies are inflated. Some inflation is of course desirable and Bitcoin could be an inherent regulator ensuring a healthy amount of inflation.
Note, this perspective equally pisses off Bitcoin skeptics and libertarian die hard hodlers. I have a very good chance of being wrong of course. But it’s not as farfetched as we’d initially suspect either. The biggest reason against this scenario isn’t the financial aspect, but the incredible shift in power that would result.
Current Bitcoin investors would find themselves suddenly incredibly wealthy and powerful. We don’t typically see shifts in power like this. But it happened to Saudi Arabia and other people who struck it suddenly rich (and powerful) with oil. So it isn’t unprecedented.
One thing I did want to reply to is the idea that house rents will not cover carrying costs of mortgages.
I think this is a telling point and focus on it because I think it's very telling regarding the mindset of crypto investors vs housing or traditional value investors.
The key difference is housing is a get rich SLOWLY system, not a get rich QUICKLY system. But crypto has been a flame for the moths of get rich quickly schemes. Previously this was the domain of ponzis, MLM schemes, various fake investments, tulips etc. While some people in Crypto may not all be of this ilk, the majority mindsets of it seem to be. I don't see many talking about HODLing for a lifetime, but only until they strike it rich somehow, generally with a minimum of work and minimum of value provided back to society in exchange for somehow getting rich, quickly.
With this in mind you say house rent does not cover holding costs such as mortgage payments (and repairs, government costs, management fees, insurances etc etc). That statement is only true when looking with a short term perspective. Which is the perspective of most people attracted to get rick quick schemes. However the statement on housing income vs costs is actually incorrect, is wrong, when looked at in with a long term mindset. This is because over time inflation increases rent while shrinking the mortgage which gets eventually paid down (in the average mode of housing investment outcomes). So when you see the fullness of time, housing investments can more than pay for their costs, while also providing capital gain. This is actually by design, it's structured, to share value between the investors for good management over the long term, and between society which gets the provision of housing provided, and managed, for the long term. This is an outcome of government policy, by design.
With that in mind, it may be that the fact that you've considered the short term perspective, may be an important insight into your thinking, may be an opportunity for you to expand the range of your thinking, should that provide you value in the fullness of your life! Anyway, just some thoughts to share!
The Russian Oligarchs are named because (see Red Notice) - they weren't entrepreneurs. During Privitization, they colluded to buy companies for literally 100ths of a penny on the dollar.
Chinese Oligarchs would be people that benefitted massively via corruption from privatizing state-owned companies.
Yes, a lot: https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/asia-buzz/article/2140667/its...
Seems they've been popular since the early 2000s - as far back as Google trends goes.
The Chinese government most likely can already see virtually all transactions made by the common Chinese folk, since WeChat/AliPay is very popular there.
Now when you have a cryptocurrency that uses an encrypted blockchain where the transactions are private and are only known by the sender and the receiver, then you know that the Chinese government will not like such a thing to be used since they know that the criminal gangs and scammers are most exactly going to use something like that with Signal E2EE and MobileCoin for their illegal activities.
Certainly, it is very easy to hide your laundered digital cash on MobileCoin than it is on Bitcoin, or a stablecoin.
Hell I am pretty sure that even if it were public people would still not call it a "crypto currency".
It exists today.
Also probably just semi-public.
Funny, I could not imagine this happening