Posts by boldbison40

Nancy Gomez26 said: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.

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.

Harold Nelson6 said:So, what exactly was stopping them from selling Ural to Asia at those better prices for the last 50 years?

Purely out of compassion for the impoverished citizens of the European Union, I suppose.

Nancy Gomez26 said: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.

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.

Nancy Gomez26 said: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.

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.

Nancy Gomez26 said: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?

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.

Nancy Gomez26 said:That bolded part is the core concept. When actual money—real value—is swapped for colorful paper, they claim it's just because paper is easier to handle than heavy metal. That’s the convenient lie. This is the true motive. Once a currency is uncoupled from its obligation to be backed by the only true form of money, there are no limits. Only the user's trust remains, and we all know how fickle that can be.

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.

https://mobile.twitter.com/olehbatko...00956888096769

An independent Kherson state 😬

If I had to place a bet, I’d put my money on the Poles. Once Nord Stream is out of the picture, virtually all the gas flow is going to be routed through Ukraine and Poland. That isn't exactly a convenient setup for the Ukrainians, which makes the Polish position much more strategic. Besides, they were quick enough to start pointing fingers at the Americans, claiming we aren't doing enough to cut off the supply from the Russians. 😬

Kate Cook27 said:We really need a headline here: Who actually sabotaged the pipeline? 🍿 🍿

There are plenty of suspects—everyone has a reason to point the finger at someone else.

But

http://www.twitter.com/visegrad24/st...CguaSs09srAAAA

ExxonMobil is going to stop shipping gas through Ukraine too. Personally, my money is on Russia being behind this sabotage. They want to drive a wedge through the European Union and jack up prices—basically doing exactly what their media outlets have been pushing regarding the "radicalization of Europeans."

The investigation has only just gotten underway

https://twitter.com/APHClarkson/stat...11779259158529

Matthew Young35 said:The real issue with Russia is that their nuclear threat isn't just rhetoric—it’s real.
Yes, Russia is an aggressor.
Yes, they invaded a sovereign nation.
Yes, they blackmail everyone in their orbit.
Yes, their military commits atrocities.
Yes, they are a mirror image of Nazi Germany leading up to World War II.

The problem? They possess 6,000 nuclear warheads. If even half of those are functional, they could drag the entire world back to the Dark Ages.

As things stand now, is nuclear war inevitable?
It feels like a dead end.
We can't afford to give in to the Russians, yet if we don't, we face nuclear war.

Everyone loses.

Quite frankly, I don't see a way out. I don't see any solution at all.
I fear a nuclear conflict is unavoidable.
We should have been thinking about this—and acting on it—a long time ago.

Stop being so melodramatic. Americans blinked during Vietnam while the Russians supplied the weapons—nothing happened. The Russians blinked in Afghanistan while the Americans supplied the weapons—again, nothing happened. Why on earth do you think the outcome will be different this time? The Russians stumbled into a quagmire they never should have entered, but losing territory in Ukraine is nowhere near a threat to the very existence of the Russian Federation, and nobody is going to order the total annihilation of the world over that. This is a bluff; it's the only card they have left to play, but since no one has ever caved to a nuclear ultimatum before, they won't start now.

Terry Green3 said:The Russians are basically backing themselves into a corner with no way out.

When does the Duma push through this annexation of rogue territories and officially claim them for the Russian Federation? Is that just a precursor to declaring war on Ukraine?
And theoretically, if someone actually manages to sideline Vladimir Putin, they'd have to run the whole process in reverse through the Duma to "relinquish" those lands. Is there even a single political faction in the Duma with the actual backbone to attempt that, or does anyone even possess the political will for such a move down the road?

Vladimir Putin is setting the stage to trap Russia in this conflict indefinitely.
It’s looking more and more like there are only two ways this ends.
Either a total defeat for Ukraine or a total defeat for Russia. Given how NATO is positioned alongside Ukraine, I’m predicting a Russian defeat, but it won't happen without heavy casualties on both sides. We're in for some dark days.

Who cares if the Duma ever votes to back down. It's like how the government in Mexico keeps a director for the Mexico office; it's all just theater.

Rachel Richardson said:

The situation remains critical—though perhaps predictably so. We are watching history unfold in real-time, much like observing a slow-motion collision on a highway where everyone sees the impact coming but nobody reaches for the brakes. It requires a certain level of stoic patience to process the sheer scale of what is happening. rowdypilot53 says:
Why skip over the fact that this already happened before Mexico? Oh, wait—Russ had a hand in it, so I guess we just won't mention it.
The situation regarding Abkhazia and Ossetia being carved out of Georgia—it’s essentially becoming Transnistria.Istrija. from Moldova
Russes have opened Pandora's box—and now they’re just sitting in Ukraine, playing games with it.

It isn't Transnistria—so what exactly would "Beyond-Transnistria" even mean?😁...rather, it’s more like being Trans-Istrija—NThe situation in the region remains critical—it’s a delicate matter.
The Nistar is simply another name for the Dnieper.
The Russians refer to that area as Pri-Dniester.

The region sits just across the Dnieper—on the side bordering Moldova.
There are even a couple of pockets along the bottom—and since it isn't particularly wide either—it’s no wonder the Russians call it Pri-Dniester.
It would be somewhat similar to our own Midwest—perhaps more akin to the plains of the Great Plains.

you're thinking of the Dniester...

bluemason3 said:The core issue isn't really about Russia or Ukraine; it's about Putin and Russia's standing on the global stage. If he starts folding or backing down now, his domestic power will take a massive hit. His whole personal brand relies on that "tough guy" persona and the image of being a brilliant strategist outsmarting a decaying West. He's bet a huge amount of political capital on this narrative.

I'm not saying this guarantees his downfall, but it definitely means a significant weakening of him personally and of Russia internationally—especially since their energy and military sectors are their primary tools for acting like a superpower.

When the US pulled out of Afghanistan, there was some mockery, sure, but it didn't change our fundamental status because our military and economic strength remained unquestioned. With Russia, those doubts surfaced within the first month of this war.

Now we're looking at a gambler who used to win through bluffing at the green felt table, but just lost a massive chunk of his chips in a single hand. Can he steady himself, grab what’s left, and walk away? Or will he act like any other addict, doubling down in the hope that luck turns around, even though that usually leads to being broke rather than breaking even?

Even if Putin announced tomorrow that all objectives were met and the Russian military was pulling out of Ukraine, I bet nothing substantial would change. The far-right would throw a tantrum on Telegram, while the majority of people would simply breathe a sigh of relief as brands like McDonald's and Zara return to the shelves. Honestly, it would be much easier for him to pull that stunt now than later, once more hundreds of thousands have been mobilized and killed, and the economy enters a death spiral—which is a mathematical certainty over the next few years. The USSR didn't collapse simply because they pulled out of Afghanistan; it collapsed because that war bled them dry, which then collided with the crash in energy prices in the late eighties, triggering a total economic meltdown.

Matthew Young35 said:The perfect scenario would be if Russia stopped threatening nuclear escalation and NATO stepped in directly to push the Russians out of Ukraine entirely.
That isn't going to happen.
Ukraine simply cannot win this war on its own.
Despite how incompetent the Russian military has proven to be, they can still mobilize millions of soldiers without much trouble. They have the capacity to arm them, too.

The Ukrainians refuse to settle for anything less than the full restoration of their stolen territory, yet the Russians have absolutely no intention of giving any of it back. Especially not Crimea.
I struggle to see how this ends well.

If I were forced to search for a compromise, it might look something like this...
Russia could be granted significant autonomy within Ukraine specifically in the DNL and LNR.
Regarding Crimea, the Russians could lease it for 100 years—much like the British handled Hong Kong—with a guarantee that I'm always allowed to maintain a military base there.
In exchange, Ukraine would receive massive economic aid from the West.
Over time, fueled by that economic support, Ukraine could become strong enough that the people in the DNL and LNR wouldn't even want to be associated with Russia anymore. Perhaps not in five or ten years, but certainly in fifty.

The question, naturally, is whether anyone would ever actually agree to such a deal.

I think those scenarios fall short. History shows us time and again that an invading army doesn't just pack up and leave simply because the war becomes expensive or loses its initial luster. Sometimes these things drag on, sometimes they end sooner, but conflicts rarely conclude through a simple surrender or a neat little peace treaty.

That said, I wouldn't rule out a compromise similar to what you suggested. All possibilities remain on the table, but both sides still have enough grit left to keep fighting, which ensures this will likely grind on for quite some time.

Nicole Morris said:That’s just how this forum works.

If you dare to mention that you don't support sanctions because they’re stripping away your comfort zone—short-term, mid-term, and long-term—or if you point out that time is ticking while this entire situation wreaks havoc on every single aspect of your economic life, then suddenly you're a Russian sympathizer and a Putin mouthpiece.

Apparently, disagreeing with the mainstream narrative is strictly forbidden. A few months of a slow freeze, a wave of layoffs because people can't keep up with these costs, or hyperinflation triggered by trying to bail out failing institutions might actually shift the narrative. Especially in Germany. But us? We don't matter.

Germany doesn't matter either. As long as the US keeps funneling weapons to Ukraine via Poland, the political rhetoric in Germany carries about as much weight as it does here in America. Even if Germany decided to unilaterally scrap every single sanction against Russia tomorrow, nothing of actual significance would change.

Sandra Harris2 said:The Chinese don't actually need to launch a military invasion.
China plays the long game.
They can simply encourage people to settle in specific regions. They can pour investment into those areas, especially when you consider the need to beef up gas export infrastructure.
Using economics and demographics as a weapon.

And then, following the Russian playbook used in Donbas, they could stir up separatists or organize a referendum like they did in Crimea.

The reality is that China is facing massive internal crises. To start with, they have enough vacant housing in these so-called "ghost cities" to accommodate over 60 million people—places where absolutely nobody actually wants to live. On the flip side, their major metropolitan areas are dealing with a real estate bubble that makes the 2008 American subprime crisis look like a soap bubble. While you might need about 13 average annual salaries to afford a median home in New York, in places like Beijing, Shanghai, or Shenzhen, you’re looking at upwards of 40 years' worth of income. Two-thirds of the major real estate giants have already crossed at least one of the Communist Party's three red lines; Evergrande, sitting on a mountain of debt exceeding $300 billion, has failed all three and is effectively incapable of taking on more debt or even finishing the projects they currently have underway. We've seen over 1.5 million Americans—well, Chinese citizens—stop paying mortgages on unfinished developments where construction has simply ground to a halt, which, when combined with the debts of these property behemoths, puts the entire banking system at risk. Four banks in Henan province have already collapsed, and we've seen tanks deployed to deal with the resulting protests. Furthermore, provincial and municipal budgets are incredibly dependent—in some cases, over 80%—on revenue from selling land to developers, yet the number of new projects is cratering along with apartment sales.

Construction accounts for over 30% of China's GDP. When the Spanish real estate bubble burst about 14 years ago, that sector accounted for 24%, and they still haven't fully recovered. Add to that the fact that the zero-COVID policy is wreaking havoc on their industrial sector, yet Xi continues to double down on it. Supply chain disruptions and general instability are driving away foreign investment, leading many Western corporations to plan a "near-shoring" exodus to bring production closer to home.

Ultimately, I suspect China will mostly play dead during this conflict. They'll snatch up any business opportunities that arise from their relationship with Russia, but they'll be careful not to jeopardize their ties with the West. That said, we shouldn't rule out a domestic Lehman Brothers-style meltdown occurring within China.

Melissa Rivera5 said:That sounds like a total freeze-out to me. Personally, 70 feels pretty great.

It is common knowledge that once you hit 70 degrees, your blood starts to freeze in your veins.😬

mellowsurfer14 said:Come on, stick to football if you're going to be this dense.

Can't you see that everything, including fuel, just went straight up in smoke?
Wages haven't moved, and for heaven's sake, pensions haven't budged either; they're exactly where they used to be.
People living on minimum wage or tiny pensions already had to be magicians just to make ends meet back in the day; ask them how much harder it's become now.

To hell with these sanctions. 🤮

It is a well-documented fact that an 8% inflation rate can cripple entire nations; what we are seeing is unprecedented. Furthermore, this surge actually started well before the conflict began, stemming more from the fallout of COVID-19 and those massive lockdowns in China than from any sanctions on Russian gas or oil, which haven't even been fully implemented yet. 😬

mellowsurfer14 said:You have to be truly slow not to see this...

Gas prices are skyrocketing, for crying out loud. Russian production in dozens of sectors has plummeted anywhere from 50 to 95 percent.

Besides, you really need to pull yourself together and get a grip.

placidnomad87 said:Are these sanctions actually hitting us harder than they are hitting Russia? It feels like everything has skyrocketed in price lately, and now we’re being told to pinch pennies on gas, cut back on electricity, and drive our cars less often. It honestly feels like these sanctions are being turned against us here in the US, aimed directly at our own people rather than the intended target.

In what specific sense? 😬