Posts by Nancy Gomez26

subtitle : Quote

brightheron64 said:But isn't the entire point of those specific sanctions to make sure the Russians can't sell even a single drop?

No. The objective isn't total paralysis; it's to force the Russian Federation into a corner where they can still pump oil, but at razor-thin margins—effectively flooding the global market with cheap supply to crash prices. That serves the interests of the West perfectly right now. Putin could have dealt a far more devastating blow to the West if he had simply shut off every single gas and oil pipe immediately. But much like his hesitant entry into the war—refusing to just "crush the fields"—his foreign policy remains equally indecisive. He’s desperate to project some semblance of "international success" domestically to prove they aren't totally isolated from the world. In this game, Putin is playing from a significantly weaker hand, constantly reacting to events rather than driving them, which only deepens his weakness. By my estimation, it's too late for drastic shifts; the world has already adjusted to this reality. Such moves might have carried weight at the start, when he first realized he was drifting away from the West, but now, the window has likely slammed shut.

Roger Fowler said:An iron curtain?

The Iron Curtain was primarily a tool for regimes to stop their own people from fleeing to the West. This, however, is designed to prevent migrants from Africa, the Middle East, or Asia from being weaponized as political leverage against neighboring nations. If Russia and Belarus are truly so eager to play humanitarian, they should just call them home and deal with the influx themselves.

John Ramos45 said:Russia might be shuffling hundreds of tankers around like a shell game, but they can't actually offload that European Union oil without handing massive discounts to China and India. The hole in the national treasury just keeps getting wider every single day, regardless of whether we're sending installments to Ukraine or not.

It’s a shell game. The Russians transfer oil to Greek vessels, the Greeks essentially issue the cargo a new identity, and then that oil flows into countries that would otherwise never touch Russian supplies. The catch? Everyone involved knows they are dancing on the edge of legality. They are cutting it close, and that risk carries a premium. Suppliers have to charge extra for the headache. It remains a mystery how the money flows back toward the Russian suppliers. This entire charade isn't cheap, and the price gap for the whole operation is covered by the sellers. After all, who would buy "tainted" oil—risking sanctions and legal hammer blows—only to pay more than they would on the open market? The West's goal isn't to shut off the Russian oil tap entirely; it's to bleed their profits dry.

Noah Diaz said:My take is simple: the European Union needs to pull out of the NATO alliance immediately. It's time to prioritize our own interests and finally achieve political and military independence. The smartest move would be to declare neutrality and trade with whoever is interested.

The war in Ukraine is a mess cooked up by the people who started it, and frankly, it doesn't concern anyone else. That means Russia, the USA, Unknown, and of course, Ukraine. How they choose to settle their mess is none of my business. My only hope is that they have enough sense left to prevent this from escalating into a point of no return—total nuclear annihilation.

The true value of being part of the NATO alliance is only becoming clear now, amidst this conflict. Let the skeptics reflect on that. For Putin and his ilk, an absence of such an alliance would have been ideal—allowing him to "operate" with his policies and brute force whenever he sees fit (and men like him never have enough force). As it stands, his hands are largely tied, his actions limited to countries that haven't managed to join NATO yet. And naturally, all those who were neutral just yesterday are looking for ways to join the alliance today. A direct consequence of Putin's policies will likely be NATO members spending well over 2% annually on defense. We may even see the creation of EU military forces.

But please, tell us again how Ukraine "cooked up" this war? The only thing you can honestly blame them for is their very existence, because apparently, simply existing is an affront to Putin. Perhaps also that they had the sheer audacity to decide to elect their own government without consulting Moscow—something we all know is particularly difficult for Putin to swallow. Thus, Putin was forced to attempt a "final solution" in Ukraine.

Amanda Allen4 said:Unlike their cheese, their financial system doesn't have giant holes poked in it. 😁

But those few remaining gaps in their banking infrastructure seem to be, by some strange coincidence, located in exactly the right spots and of precisely the right dimensions.

gentlebadger said:Even just freezing assets without actually selling them off carries some pretty significant leverage in negotiations—you can't just overlook that.

Sure, someone freezes your funds and then "returns" them to you twenty or thirty years down the road. And don't forget they'll charge you "custodial fees" along the way. Meanwhile, inflation quietly does its job. Putin will certainly leave a lasting impression on those who exhausted themselves looting the Russian Federation, only to spirit that cash away like true patriots.

For those working within the Swiss banking sector, the prospect of seizing assets and freezing accounts could trigger massive systemic issues down the line. Who among their clientele would actually trust them after such a move, believing they wouldn't be the next targets on the list? People don't funnel capital into Swiss banks just because they appreciate fine cheese or high-end watches.

hollowdriver13 said:https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/...79938696359941

Apparently, "the wealthy" need to start footing the bill for the government. The logic is that it’s just not right for some folks to be sitting on piles of cash while the national budget is struggling—though, hey, luckily for them, those sanctions aren't actually doing anything anyway.

If you haven't heard about Uravnilovka 2023 yet (maybe because you aren't deep enough in the loop or you're on the wrong side of the powers that be), buckle up. Here we come.

Uravnilovka serves its purpose... strictly on paper. Those positioned closer to power—and in higher ranks—always possess far more than they require. To facilitate this, everyone else is squeezed until there is enough left over for "those at the top." Then you have the endless line of system enforcers who also cannot afford to lack. Over time, it accumulates.

Daniel Rogers58 said:>>The quality is roughly comparable. The sole distinction is that not a single member of The Beatles ever received an 800-square-foot apartment from a mayor for $233. Beyond that, the circumstances are identical.
And then you have the fools taking out mortgages and spending their entire lives paying them off. How naive. In reality, all it takes is being loud enough about hating someone or making a public spectacle of your disdain—essentially just acting like a total degenerate—and suddenly, boom... you’ve got a free apartment courtesy of "national service."

Some members of The Beatles actually received far more than the Queen (in terms of titles). And some of them even rejected her honors entirely.
From what I can gather, these "distinguished citizens" of Cleveland haven't actually been handed apartments; they simply reside in municipal housing at heavily discounted rates. It seems unlikely they would pay market rent in those units. Whether that is justifiable is beyond me, but if the voters of Cleveland find the local policies distasteful, they have the power to fix it at the next local election.

George Robinson43 said:Somewhere around the year 2050 or 2060.

I suspect we will see it much sooner than your grim predictions suggest. Honestly, I fail to see the logic in trying to negotiate such terms after two or three decades of crushing sanctions and the total devaluation of all held assets. We will simply have to wait and see.

Noah Diaz said:This implies the Russians will walk away thinking their entire foreign debt has been settled or bought back. Granted, I suspect their external debt actually exceeds those looted reserves, but then again, Oleg wasn't exactly known for being stingy. 😁

There will eventually come a day when we sit down to discuss obligations, frozen assets, reparations, and the lifting of sanctions. When the line is finally drawn, everyone will know exactly who owes what to whom.

Nathan Thomas12 said:You're getting your wires crossed regarding the BIS. The Federal Reserve handles the US Dollar, and the European Central Bank handles the Euro. Central banks manage the system's liquidity; the BIS doesn't have anything to do with that part.
The BIS is more like a clearinghouse for central banks—nothing more, nothing less.
Market forces dictate what a currency is worth, provided it's actually a market currency. That Ruble? It's strictly political territory, not a market currency.

The BIS acts as the central hub for the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, and everyone else. It’s a hierarchy. Whether that hierarchy is respected, or how much autonomy individual nations' central banks actually possess, is a separate debate. However, it serves everyone's interest to maintain a unified policy. The public perception of "independent leadership" making isolated decisions at each bank is largely a facade designed to appease the masses; the collective interest always outweighs any desire for autonomy. Currently, that collective interest is being forced by a situation so critical that if anyone tried to go rogue, the entire fragile system would likely collapse under its own weight. Therefore, a synchronized policy isn't just preferred—it's survival for everyone playing this game.

boldbison40 said:But then why do the US Dollar, the British Pound, or the Japanese Yen have value in America even though there is no coercion involved and you can't use them to pay your taxes or your staff? Or does the market simply perceive inherent value in fiat currencies in the same way it views gold or any other asset?

I agree with the second half of the post. That said, the ruble has also strengthened organically because imports from the West have plummeted for Russians, leaving them with a massive surplus of foreign exchange they have nowhere to spend, combined with an influx of capital in the first half of the year that exceeded expectations due to rising oil and gas prices. However, a drastic collapse in imports is never a harbinger of good news for an economy; typically, such trends lead to a rather grim conclusion.

Foreign currencies carry weight abroad because, at the end of the day, it’s all part of the same machine. Every central bank—whether local or national—essentially operates as a single entity under the umbrella of the Bank for International Settlements in Basel. They act as the central bank for all banks. It comes down to mutual recognition; they validate one another, which provides that necessary layer of legitimacy back home. It’s an interesting irony: humanity struggles to reach a consensus on almost everything else, yet when it comes to the money, the global elites reached their agreements long ago, quietly and efficiently. A self-made pact isn't inherently a bad thing. But given basic human nature, it will likely end badly.

boldbison40 said:And fiat currency only maintains its status because the market agrees it should; otherwise, nobody would be willing to trade gold, or indeed anything else, for that paper. There is an endless mountain of monetary theories regarding the ideal amount of liquidity in circulation, but I have no desire to bore everyone here with a lecture on macroeconomics.

Low interest rates generally act as fuel for economic activity, but as with just about everything in life, excess leads to ruin. It is common knowledge that governments love to plunder and squander funds. They achieve this through taxes and various levies far more aggressively than they do through a mere couple of percentage points of inflation.

A fiat currency is "valuable" primarily because it is backed by the state's entire apparatus of coercion. The government issues a decree stating that a specific currency is the sole legal tender—the only way to pay taxes or receive a paycheck from the state. That is the bedrock of its existence. The market acts as a secondary force, often holding an opinion on a currency's value that differs sharply from the issuing state's perspective. Wise nations listen to what the market says about their currency and adjust policy to prevent massive divergence. Less wise nations pretend their currency is worth more than the market claims, though such countries rarely see their money converted into other currencies at the "real" exchange rate they insist upon. The black market always tells the truth. Look at what is happening in Russia today. Putin's apologists cling to the exchange rate of a "strong" ruble as if it were some definitive proof of a booming economy.

analogbear5 said:If that fantasy of yours actually came true, you'd trade every ounce of that gold just for a slice of bread.

Look, I work the land. In a total collapse, I’m the one left hungry and "out of bread" at the end of the day. In that grim scenario, I’d likely find myself on the opposite side of whatever trade you're dreaming up. But then again, anything can happen.

boldbison40 said:and gold is merely a metal😬

that carries value only because society reached a collective agreement.

The fundamental purpose of money is to act as a medium of exchange so goods and services can flow smoothly. Saving is a secondary function, and there are plenty of other ways to store value besides hoarding bullion.

Gold possesses worth simply because the market dictates it. If you ask the central bankers, they would argue its value is significantly lower—yet even they won't let go of their gold reserves. They cling to them tightly. Of course, there are those who play the game by selling when it’s cheap and buying when it’s expensive—the so-called Bottoms Up crowd—but that is a separate, rather curious saga entirely.
I concede that the primary role of money is enabling trade, but how can one trust the system when real interest rates on savings hover near, or even dip below, zero? It creates a perverse reality where those who practiced prudence in the past—saving to secure their future—are effectively being punished for it today. It is a distorted, twisted setup, and such systems inevitably collapse under their own weight.
As for alternative ways to preserve the fruits of one's labor, they certainly exist, though they all carry varying degrees of risk. I will simply note that governments, without exception, excel at stripping wealth from their citizens under various pretexts. The state always finds a way to lay its small hands on private property through taxation or expropriation. Naturally, the more you possess, the higher the probability they will attempt to divest you of it. Fortunately, most people own very little or nothing at all, leaving them largely untouched by these maneuvers.

analogbear5 said:Personally, I'm just glad the gold standard started losing steam back in '29. It hasn't happened again.

Personally, I wouldn't mind getting my hands on that "collapsed" gold right about now.

boldbison40 said:Sure, but nobody is walking into a shop and paying for a tailored suit with ancient gold coins. If you actually pivoted back to a gold standard right now, the resulting deflation would be enough to make your head spin. Just try to wrap your mind around how many gold coins would have to change hands just to cover the cost of all the suits bought in today's market.

Gold is an incredibly finite resource, whereas the total supply of goods, services, and labor is constantly expanding. In fact, productivity has multiplied exponentially since most major economies abandoned the gold standard back in the mid-1930s. How on earth do you expect to fuel a modern economy when you're tethered to such a strictly limited money supply?

Naturally, the value of gold would skyrocket continuously, creating a scenario where nobody would bother spending or, heaven forbid, investing. Why bother working when you know you'll be wealthier tomorrow simply by sitting on your pile of gold?

I am certainly not claiming the current system is flawless, but from a purely macroeconomic standpoint, a mild level of inflation is far superior to the alternative. It incentivizes people to actually put their capital to work rather than hoarding it, which is infinitely better than facing the kind of crushing deflation that actively dismantles an economy.

Money is gold—nothing else. Currency is merely paper, usually issued without any tangible backing beyond a shred of trust and the threat of government mandate. Paper can be useful in a pinch, but one should never forget it is just paper.
Inflation serves those who want to spend today what they might earn tomorrow. It also benefits those who live by spending what others earn. But for those who actually work for their own living? They generally prefer stability. There is little point in earning something if you cannot preserve its real value over time.
As for this idea of "forcing" people to move their money—I suggest you manage your own capital however you see fit. Leave mine alone. That is what freedom of choice looks like.

boldbison40 said:This whole obsession with the gold standard just refuses to stay buried. 😵😵😵

The gold standard is easily one of the most absurd delusions ever conceived in the history of economics.

Precisely. That is the reality. Throughout history, every single currency has hemorrhaged value until they eventually collapsed, only to be replaced by something else. Consider this: back in the Roman Empire, a single gold coin could secure you a decent toga; today, that exact same amount of metal buys you a decent suit. In those two millennia alone, how many currencies have risen and fallen? And how many more are destined to vanish?

electricsurfer47 said:What do you guys think would happen if Russia ditched the ruble entirely and started using gold as their main currency? Just thinking hypothetically here... would gold end up being more stable than the ruble? Probably, right?

People have been talking about gold becoming the go-to currency for ages, which is probably why so many countries are hoarding it in their reserves.

Gold is money. Paper is just currency. The only paper even remotely resembling actual money is the kind you can always swap for physical gold at a fixed rate. (And let’s not confuse this with "paper gold"—those securities that claim to be "backed" by bullion; most of those have zero connection to physical metal, but that’s a different rabbit hole entirely.) That specific type of paper—convertible to a set amount of gold—was the Federal Reserve before Nixon "temporarily" killed the conversion option. But paper is paper, and it’s always built on shaky ground. The decision to end the dollar-to-gold conversion perfectly illustrates how fast reality shifts; the rules that held true a minute ago can vanish in a heartbeat. If you weren't prepared when the floor dropped, you were left holding the bag.
It likely isn't in Russia's interest to burn through their gold reserves right now. However, since their foreign exchange reserves are essentially locked away in overseas bank accounts and government bonds, they've lost access to them. They are forced to rely on whatever domestic reserves they've tucked away for a rainy day. For Russia, that domestic currency is the ruble, used to pay their people—provided those people still trust the ruble. Trust is clearly eroding, evidenced by the fact that the black market rate for buying dollars is significantly higher than the official rate the state uses. To handle foreign trade and imports, Russians will have to resort to old-school tactics: cash, bartering goods, or using gold. It’s a playground for small-time traders and the types of opportunistic hustlers the state tends to favor.