End of maduro - hopefully. - Page 49 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15021539
Patrickov wrote:Good call for busting my trolling :lol:

Seriously, barter economy is always the way to go when the currency system you use breaks down.

That's a true phenomenon.

However, Russia and China, for example, have been bartering oil for merchandise for years, and China has been setting up such barter arrangements elsewhere, as well.

I frankly regard this as an interesting development.

China also set up an oil futures market in the UAE last year.

The petro dollar is a real thing, and the US may be able to invade Iraq or overthrow the Libyan government to prevent its abandonment, but the US can't use hard power with China.

I'm not here to be unsympathetic to the Hong Kong people. I'm an American, currently living in China. It's really out of my wheelhouse though.

And that's not to say I'm sympathetic to the Hong Kong people, either. It is, as I said, out of my wheelhouse.

I'm interested in the US petro dollar topic, and it does seem to me that this is a circumvention. I'm merely an observer, though.
#15021541
JohnRawls wrote:Actually there is a little known fact how Venezuelan - Chinese oil trade functions. On top of the usual stuff, Venezuela also covers ALL of the shipping costs from Venezuela to China. I am not 100% sure Venezuelans are even running a profit with the current prices + covering all of the shipping costs. (Basically the agreement between China and Venezuela is that Venezuela extracts and ships the oil to where China wants it). In reality what China does a lot of the time is buys the Venezuelan oil and resells it to the US(Not all, but a lot of it depending on their capacities, since their capacity to process it is limited.) So basically they act as a sort of intermediary. This has been going on since Chavez times. Very inefficient system. When it was set up, it was an attempt from Chavez to diversify the buyers but it backfired spectacularly.

I think you are actually unwittingly supporting his point. That is to say, you guys seem to agree with one another.

I don't necessarily disagree, but provided the circumstances this is probably a rational approach by Venezuela. That is to say, they'd probably prefer hard currency in the form of USD, but given that's barred, Yuan loans in exchange for oil is the alternative.

Bartering is not inherently inefficient though. The China-Russia arrangement is probably efficient (and is basically a case of barter, in the case of oil from Russia in exchange for Chinese manufactures).

But the key point had to do with alternatives to oil trade in dollars, which is a circumvention of the petro-dollar. Oil contracts not being satisfied with dollars does directly amount to a weakening of the petro dollar. If you aren't using dollars to settle oil payments, that means a reduction of demand for US Dollars.

The US is the one that cut Venezuela off, so this sort of thing is an interesting development.

It's also the sort of thing you might expect if you are paying attention.

Interesting, nonetheless.
#15021549
Crantag wrote:I think you are actually unwittingly supporting his point. That is to say, you guys seem to agree with one another.

I don't necessarily disagree, but provided the circumstances this is probably a rational approach by Venezuela. That is to say, they'd probably prefer hard currency in the form of USD, but given that's barred, Yuan loans in exchange for oil is the alternative.

Bartering is not inherently inefficient though. The China-Russia arrangement is probably efficient (and is basically a case of barter, in the case of oil from Russia in exchange for Chinese manufactures).

But the key point had to do with alternatives to oil trade in dollars, which is a circumvention of the petro-dollar. Oil contracts not being satisfied with dollars does directly amount to a weakening of the petro dollar. If you aren't using dollars to settle oil payments, that means a reduction of demand for US Dollars.

The US is the one that cut Venezuela off, so this sort of thing is an interesting development.

It's also the sort of thing you might expect if you are paying attention.

Interesting, nonetheless.


Ask yourself, why are we using currencies if bartering is not inherently inefficient? I mean, why do we bother with currencies if bartering is more or less the same is what you are trying to imply?

As for the petro-dollar myth. It is a big slogan, down with the petro-dollar. The reality is that the dollar is not a petro-dollar. US won't even feel if all of the exchange of oil moved to euro or yuan or whatever. The reality is this:

Image

Dollar is 1st with 60-70 percent.
Euro is 2nd with 20-30 percent.

And the rest are within the 0-10%.

The goods are traded mostly in dollars and euros. Nobody really wants to trade with anything else in the world. Even the Chinese themselves can't seem to trade in Yuans....

So what is 1 product line excluded from dollar or euro. Nor will it shift the balance anyhow. The only thing that can crash the dominance of the dollar and to the same degre the Euro is a crash of those economies. We had the Debt crysis in Europe so the usage of Euro went down but now it is going up again. Same thing for the US, if there is a US-centric/only crysis than the usage of the dollar will go down.

The simple reason for that is that our economies are transparent and play by solid economic rules while other countries are basically either:
a) Too small.
b) Are not transparent.
c) Do not play by real economic rules.
d) Do not have a successful economy.
e) Do not have any trust. (Trust is a relatively hard thing to measure but it consists of great many things)
#15021628
JohnRawls wrote:Actually there is a little known fact how Venezuelan - Chinese oil trade functions. On top of the usual stuff, Venezuela also covers ALL of the shipping costs from Venezuela to China. I am not 100% sure Venezuelans are even running a profit with the current prices + covering all of the shipping costs. (Basically the agreement between China and Venezuela is that Venezuela extracts and ships the oil to where China wants it). In reality what China does a lot of the time is buys the Venezuelan oil and resells it to the US(Not all, but a lot of it depending on their capacities, since their capacity to process it is limited.) So basically they act as a sort of intermediary. This has been going on since Chavez times. Very inefficient system. When it was set up, it was an attempt from Chavez to diversify the buyers but it backfired spectacularly.


For the text in bold, I am interested in how and why it "backfired spectacularly".

Seriously, if I am the US, I probably would do at least one of the following:
1. Ask Venezuela to directly trade, OR ELSE -- naturally, buy at a high price than China's offer, but lower than the price I need to pay China
2. Sanction China for their role (which is what Trump is pretty much doing now)

It seems action 2 would make Venezuela's plan backfire, but I must make it clear that it is a neutral act. Doing something causing someone else's plan backfire (even if I know it), does not necessarily mean I am attacking the planner, because there are, in fact, other options for my counterparts.
#15021629
JohnRawls wrote:Ask yourself, why are we using currencies if bartering is not inherently inefficient?


Simple. Trust and fairness. Currency allows us to have a universal, widely available and fair means to decide the value of anything (yes, that includes human lives and their integrity or dignity if both trading sides agree).

Bartering is just variable, it's not necessarily inefficient, especially if you cannot readily use currency.
#15021704
JohnRawls wrote:Ask yourself, why are we using currencies if bartering is not inherently inefficient? I mean, why do we bother with currencies if bartering is more or less the same is what you are trying to imply?

As for the petro-dollar myth. It is a big slogan, down with the petro-dollar. The reality is that the dollar is not a petro-dollar. US won't even feel if all of the exchange of oil moved to euro or yuan or whatever. The reality is this:

Image

Dollar is 1st with 60-70 percent.
Euro is 2nd with 20-30 percent.

And the rest are within the 0-10%.

The goods are traded mostly in dollars and euros. Nobody really wants to trade with anything else in the world. Even the Chinese themselves can't seem to trade in Yuans....

So what is 1 product line excluded from dollar or euro. Nor will it shift the balance anyhow. The only thing that can crash the dominance of the dollar and to the same degre the Euro is a crash of those economies. We had the Debt crysis in Europe so the usage of Euro went down but now it is going up again. Same thing for the US, if there is a US-centric/only crysis than the usage of the dollar will go down.

The simple reason for that is that our economies are transparent and play by solid economic rules while other countries are basically either:
a) Too small.
b) Are not transparent.
c) Do not play by real economic rules.
d) Do not have a successful economy.
e) Do not have any trust. (Trust is a relatively hard thing to measure but it consists of great many things)


As @Patrickov said, bartering is not necessarily inefficient. It is generally inefficient.

It's a funny thing for you to want to learn me on that, but then to turn around and misunderstand the basics of monetary economics, whereby the value of the dollar is dependent on demand, to a pretty large extent.

I went back and looked at the OP, and realized you are the thread author, so you are going to seek to counter me, as a reflexive motion.

I'm going to call out another strawman here. I never claimed that bartering wasn't inefficient in most cases (I think I more or less implied that it was, in most cases). I stated that bartering is potentially efficient, in some cases, which it is.

I also stated that Venezuala would prefer hard currency (e.g. USD), but that this bartering arrangement represents an alternative.

I moreover mentioned the China-Russia arrangement (of oil for manufactures) as a case of an arrangement which is basically a situation whereby two nations which do have alternatives have opted for an arrangement which might be called 'barter'. (Although, I am not here to be pigeon holed, and there are situations in which barter is efficient at a micro level as well, and not just a macro level. If you aren't a sufficiently deep thinker to realize that, I don't feel like going out of my way to educate you in this particular post; but that's not necessarily to say I wouldn't do so in a later one.)

You are pushing an agenda here, Mr. OP, so I don't want to yell into the wind.

I don't even have a strong opinion on this Venezuela situation (though like you, I have reflexes, and my reflexes tend to say this is just one of the latest instances of American imperialism gone amuck).

I made a comment about how an interesting observation had been made, as to the circumventing of the petro dollar.

If you think the petro dollar is a misnomer good on you, I don't, but I don't like to read long winded posts, and I don't like to post them, so I'll probably pinch this off, but maybe if you insist we can get into this a little more. (That's not to say I'm looking forward to it, Mr. OP, as it's clear your mind is thoroughly made up, and so it would seem as though any form of debate would probably be pointless.)
#15021739
@Crantag, anybody sharing the issue he / she cares here is, at worst, sharing. I really don't believe it's effective to push any agenda here. I believe Mr. Rawls knows that as well. In this case, you are setting up a strawman as well.

In addition, however you hate Western Imperialism, I found that:
1. It is better than either Russian, Islamic or Chinese Imperialism, or tribal warfare if neither exists.
2. If you reject Western Imperialism you inevitably suffer from the stuff I mentioned in point 1.

Oppose it if you like, but in reality you don't have much alternative.
#15021752
Patrickov wrote:@Crantag, anybody sharing the issue he / she cares here is, at worst, sharing. I really don't believe it's effective to push any agenda here. I believe Mr. Rawls knows that as well. In this case, you are setting up a strawman as well.

In addition, however you hate Western Imperialism, I found that:
1. It is better than either Russian, Islamic or Chinese Imperialism, or tribal warfare if neither exists.
2. If you reject Western Imperialism you inevitably suffer from the stuff I mentioned in point 1.

Oppose it if you like, but in reality you don't have much alternative.

I don't oppose it.

I was making a political commentary.

I'm from the US, which makes me free to criticize.

I didn't make any strawman, I believe.
#15021768
Rugoz wrote:The petro-dollar demand is tiny compared to the total dollar demand. Someone did the math here:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/07/de ... onspiracy/

Very elegantly written.

Are you really naive enough to fall for it?

You apparently are.

(It's actually not that elegant).

A conspiracy theorist though is a rather convenient label to seek to discredit.

I also invite all to read the article.

(I skimmed it, to be straight. Didn't seem worth a deep reading.)
#15021770
I'll probably read it tomorrow though, if it passes the Chinese censors on my cell phone (it probably won't).

Otherwise, I'll probably read it at home on my VPN. But it's time for bed, and I'll stand by my initial prognosis for the time being.
#15021785
Crantag wrote:As @Patrickov said, bartering is not necessarily inefficient. It is generally inefficient.

It's a funny thing for you to want to learn me on that, but then to turn around and misunderstand the basics of monetary economics, whereby the value of the dollar is dependent on demand, to a pretty large extent.

I went back and looked at the OP, and realized you are the thread author, so you are going to seek to counter me, as a reflexive motion.

I'm going to call out another strawman here. I never claimed that bartering wasn't inefficient in most cases (I think I more or less implied that it was, in most cases). I stated that bartering is potentially efficient, in some cases, which it is.

I also stated that Venezuala would prefer hard currency (e.g. USD), but that this bartering arrangement represents an alternative.

I moreover mentioned the China-Russia arrangement (of oil for manufactures) as a case of an arrangement which is basically a situation whereby two nations which do have alternatives have opted for an arrangement which might be called 'barter'. (Although, I am not here to be pigeon holed, and there are situations in which barter is efficient at a micro level as well, and not just a macro level. If you aren't a sufficiently deep thinker to realize that, I don't feel like going out of my way to educate you in this particular post; but that's not necessarily to say I wouldn't do so in a later one.)

You are pushing an agenda here, Mr. OP, so I don't want to yell into the wind.

I don't even have a strong opinion on this Venezuela situation (though like you, I have reflexes, and my reflexes tend to say this is just one of the latest instances of American imperialism gone amuck).

I made a comment about how an interesting observation had been made, as to the circumventing of the petro dollar.

If you think the petro dollar is a misnomer good on you, I don't, but I don't like to read long winded posts, and I don't like to post them, so I'll probably pinch this off, but maybe if you insist we can get into this a little more. (That's not to say I'm looking forward to it, Mr. OP, as it's clear your mind is thoroughly made up, and so it would seem as though any form of debate would probably be pointless.)


I will ignore the things about my bias because well, we are all biased here to a degree. I am willing to admit it. It a simple fact that we all, without exception, view the world through our own leanses that are effected by societies, experiences, etc. I am willing though to change my mind on issues if i am presented good arguments though. As for pushing an agenda, i mean this is a wrong place. This is not a place that determines countries policies so...

Now that we have that out of the way. I can see situations where barter can be as efficient as currency trade. The problem with that is trade usually doesn't happen that way. If you need X amount of specific medicine and you trade x amount of oil for it then sure. The problem i think comes from the fact that you can overbuy specific things and then you won't be able to do anything with it. This is further more complicated when we talk about not 1 product but lets say 10, 100, 1000 etc Its not like the person you bought the medecine from will usually be kind to buy it back if you bought too much for example.

@Patrickov

Regarding the "Spectacular failure": You are looking at it very China centric. The spectacular failure is for Venezuela. The whole point of it was to deversify the purchasers of oil. What it did in reality is that it decreased the profits (because they need to ship it themselves now and further to China) and had marginal effect on diversification(At start majority of this "trade" went to the US with the Chinese basically pocketing the price of shipment in to their pocket). Right now, i am not 100% sure but i doubt that China all of the sudden built facilities to process Heavy Crude. Most of the facilities for that type of oil is in the US.
#15021879
Rugoz wrote:The petro-dollar demand is tiny compared to the total dollar demand. Someone did the math here:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/07/de ... onspiracy/

I read your article (and of course this is nothing personal as I consider you a knowledgeable poster on economics, and like much of what you have to say, but I disagree with your assessment of this article and this situation).

You said someone did the math there. Let me recommend some light reading material myself.
Image

I'll get to the so-called math first.
Even if all oil were sold for dollars, it would be a very small factor in the international demand for dollars, as can be seen with a bit of simple arithmetic. World oil production is a bit under 90 million barrels a day. If two-thirds of this oil is sold across national borders, then it implies a daily oil trade of 60 million barrels. If all of this oil is sold in dollars, then it means that oil consumers would have to collectively hold $4.2 billion to cover their daily oil tab.

By comparison, China alone holds more than $1 trillion in currency reserves, more than 200 times the transaction demand for oil. In other words, if China reduced its holdings of dollars by just 0.5 percent, it would have more impact on the demand for dollars than if all oil exporters suddenly stopped accepting dollars for their oil.


The author leaves something out here. Leaving aside the disincentives for China to act in this way (which the writer partially goes into), he left out a key phrase. Let me reword it for him. "(...) if China reduced its holdings of dollars by just 0.5 percent per day, it would have more impact on the demand for dollars than if all oil exporters suddenly stopped accepting dollars for their oil."

Foreign Policy is basically just a neocon rag in my opinion, which incidentally I sometimes do enjoy reading.

This article is full of problems.

Lets look at some other of my criticisms.

With the United States’ ascendancy as the pre-eminent economic power after World War II, the dollar became the world’s reserve currency: Most countries held dollars in reserve in the event that they suddenly needed an asset other than their own currency to pay for imports, or to support their own currency. Much international trade, including trade not involving the United States, was carried through in dollars. In addition, most internationally traded commodities became priced in dollars on exchanges. However, the dollar was never universally used to carry through trade (even trade in oil), and the pricing of commodities in dollars is primarily just a convention.


The author leaves out a critical aspect behind the ascendancy of the US dollar as the international reserve currency after WW2. There is no mention here of Bretton Woods. No mention of the gold-exchange standard, which was centered on the US dollar.

Granted this system is not the only cause for the dollar's ascendance, and the reasons mentioned by the author are part of the story, but no proper understanding can be attained absent this critical background factor (which might have even been the pivotal factor).

Suppose that prices in the oil market were quoted in yen or bushels of wheat. Currently, oil is priced at about $70 a barrel. A dollar today is worth about 90 yen. A bushel of wheat sells for about $3.50. If oil were priced in yen, then the current price of a barrel of oil in yen would 6,300 yen. If oil were priced in wheat, then the price of a barrel of oil would be 20 bushels. If oil were priced in either yen or wheat it would have no direct consequence for the dollar. If the dollar were still the preferred asset among oil sellers, then they would ask for the dollar equivalents of the yen or wheat price of oil. The calculation would take a billionth of a second on modern computers, and business would proceed exactly as it does today.


Here now the author is confounding the function of the dollar as unit of account with that of means of settlement. This is probably just a dishonest effort to confuse readers not sufficiently versed in economics, by filling up space in the column with a reassuring sounding paragraph.

It's ironic though that he mentions bushels of wheat, given the discussion in recent posts in this thread about barter! (That isn't really to mean anything, other than to point out that irony is fun.)

Only one more quote. The author moves into this.

It does matter slightly that the trade typically takes place in dollars. This means that those wishing to buy oil must acquire dollars to buy the oil, which increases the demand for dollars in world financial markets. However, the impact of the oil trade is likely to be a very small factor affecting the value of the dollar.


The author begins to breach the topic, but deviates immediately. This article is not intended to be a serious piece of analysis. This article is merely intended to push a pre-determined conclusion.

By the way, I'll do a little math now.

According to the author's reckoning, the DAILY tab for oil, transacted in dollars, is $4.2 billion.

$4.2 billion x 365 = $1.533 trillion.

China's holdings of US treasury notes in 2008 when this article was written, according to the author, amounted to $1 trillion.

So in actuality, China would need to dump $1.533 trillion of it's $1 trillion of holdings, per year, to have the same impact on the dollar as the complete abandonment of the US dollar as means of settlement for oil contracts (supposedly anyway, based on the author's reasoning, although treasuries don't really equal dollars--and in the real world would still find buyers but the effect would be a discounting of US treasuries. By the way, the author dishonestly calls these treasury notes 'currency reserves' in the piece).

If this looks like good math to you than, well, we have quite different conceptions of good math I suppose, to put it as politely as possible.
#15021883
JohnRawls wrote:I can see situations where barter can be as efficient as currency trade. The problem with that is trade usually doesn't happen that way. If you need X amount of specific medicine and you trade x amount of oil for it then sure. The problem i think comes from the fact that you can overbuy specific things and then you won't be able to do anything with it. This is further more complicated when we talk about not 1 product but lets say 10, 100, 1000 etc Its not like the person you bought the medecine from will usually be kind to buy it back if you bought too much for example.

Believe me, I get this.

What you are talking about is the coincidence of needs.

The more items you have to trade, the less likely it is for barter to be an efficient means.

But, there are no absolutes, and barter can be an efficient means of trade.

It is sort of illustrated by Marx's classic formula of how the merchant makes money:

M-C-M'

(where M is money; C is commodity; M' is the initial outlay plus profit).

If the coincidence of need is satisfied, it's quite possible to achieve gain through barter by forgoing the middleman (merchant).

When I was living in Japan, I was once preparing for a trip back to the US. A friend of mine had just returned from Russia. He had dollars that he needed to exchange into yen (better to bring dollars from Russia, rather than rubles, for exchanging into Japanese currency). It so happened I needed some dollars for my trip to the US.

So, I went to the bank, and I asked them for the buying and selling price for dollars, offered at the bank that day. I then averaged these, and exchanged with my friend at this rate.

Had I simply exchanged my yen at the bank, I would have got a worse rate than I achieved, and my friend would have done the same.

It might seem counter intuitive to characterize the exchanging of currency with my friend as barter, but it essentially was; what's more, this illustrates the principal I'm evoking probably better than any other example I could devise.

But, if you can understand how the above was efficient for my friend and I (and it seems quite self-evident, I think), it shouldn't be a deep plunge to understand that barter in commodities can potentially operate in basically the same way.

Maybe you are my neighbor, and you have a side hustle of keeping bees, to produce honey and make a few extra bucks. I have a little side hustle/hobby of my own, in that I have a flock of chickens, which produce enough eggs for me to sell.

I am a regular consumer of honey, and you are a regular consumer of eggs.

Given this coincidence of wants, it is quite plausible (I'd go further and say it is quite likely) that we could trade directly, foregoing the middle man, and I can wind up with more honey, and you more eggs, than if we each sold our wares separately for cash, and then turned around and transacted with one another.

For the most part, barter is efficient in isolated cases.

It so happens that there is always a coincidence of need in the case of oil, though. Every country uses oil. If an oil importer transacts with an oil exporter, oil would seem to be potentially a rather pliable means of settling accounts, at least in certain situations (although the China-Russia trade shows that it can also be so in general situations; whereas the Venezuela-China case is indicative of it being so in particular situations).
#15021885
Crantag wrote:This is a bit artificious. Oil is a global commodity and China wouldn't have difficulty getting fuel to power it's tanks. That's a strawman.

I just thought I'd comment to counter your attempted distractions.

One of the most interesting aspects is that which Igor aptly picked up on. Oil for loan repayment is indeed another circumventing of the petro-dollar.

By the way, I'm sad no one caught it (not really, I didn't expect them to), but I used a non-word here (basically), e.g. 'artificious'.

The truth of the matter is, I couldn't come up with a more suitable word!

Meriam-Webster wrote:artificious. obsolete. : displaying skill or artifice.


But, I used it in the sense proscribed by Hugo Chavez's interpreter in the classic "The stupid people from Fox News" clip. :lol:



I think this is a word and concept worthy for adoption into English.
#15021887
Crantag wrote:According to the author's reckoning, the DAILY tab for oil, transacted in dollars, is $4.2 billion.

$4.2 billion x 365 = $1.533 trillion.

China's holdings of US treasury notes in 2008 when this article was written, according to the author, amounted to $1 trillion.

So in actuality, China would need to dump $1.533 trillion of it's $1 trillion of holdings, per year, to have the same impact on the dollar as the complete abandonment of the US dollar as means of settlement for oil contracts (supposedly anyway, based on the author's reasoning, although treasuries don't really equal dollars--and in the real world would still find buyers but the effect would be a discounting of US treasuries. By the way, the author dishonestly calls these treasury notes 'currency reserves' in the piece).


First of all, you're the first to respond to this article, I appreciate it.

I would agree that whatever China holds in US dollars is hardly relevant in this context.

But if we look at the foreign exchange market, it averages $5+ trillion a day. 88% of that involves the US dollar (e.g. here for April 2016, for some reason there's no newer report). ~$4.2bn is a blip on the radar (that's the price of the daily physical production, daily traded crude oil volume can be higher). If anything the US would have to go to war its allies, i.e. Europe (EUR), Japan (JPY) and the UK (GBP).
#15021906
Rugoz wrote:First of all, you're the first to respond to this article, I appreciate it.

I would agree that whatever China holds in US dollars is hardly relevant in this context.

But if we look at the foreign exchange market, it averages $5+ trillion a day. 88% of that involves the US dollar (e.g. here for April 2016, for some reason there's no newer report). ~$4.2bn is a blip on the radar (that's the price of the daily physical production, daily traded crude oil volume can be higher). If anything the US would have to go to war its allies, i.e. Europe (EUR), Japan (JPY) and the UK (GBP).

This doesn't address my critiques of the article at all, though.

And you are making a presumption of all of these players dumping US treasuries (which they won't, for reasons of self-interest; nor will China, for reasons of self-interest).

It's really quite a problematic comparison: seeking to equate holders of US debt with oil transactors.

The point isn't that either is on the verge of collapsing; the point is that the latter indeed matters.

You sought to debunk this, and I will say you failed to do so.

Demand for dollars matters. I think that's the moral of the story I'm spinning. You seem to be seeking to explain this moral away, through what I would call irrelevancies.

I'm not predicting any collapse, but the topic has to do with potentialities. I would say the probability of a shift such as what I'm going to now evoke is exceedingly low, but if somehow decline of demand for the dollar were to suddenly occur, divestment from the dollar would likely follow, and there would be a collapse.
#15022000


Zionist Nationalist wrote:Skinster got any proof that the US sanctions kill people?


Yes, I've posted the evidence of U.S. sanctions killing 40,000+ Venezuelans in 2017/2018 ALONE, twice already. You can go back and read those or maybe do a Google search instead of demanding to be spoonfed like a moronic twat every time. Sanctions are war and always kill the people. Do you want me to pull up the infamous Madeline Albright interview where she admitted the U.S. sanctions killed 500,000 children under 5yo that she thought was worth it? The real number of children killed in Iraq by U.S. sanctions passed the million mark but apparently kids aged above 5 weren't considered kids by those who were keeping tally of that genocidal child-killing imposed on Iraq by the U.S. that the world knows as "sanctions".

the shortages in medicine started way before US sanctions


Citation needed.

all you do is again spread misinformation and fake news


The delusions are the strongest with the Zionists
#15022021
Crantag wrote:This doesn't address my critiques of the article at all, though.

And you are making a presumption of all of these players dumping US treasuries (which they won't, for reasons of self-interest; nor will China, for reasons of self-interest).

It's really quite a problematic comparison: seeking to equate holders of US debt with oil transactors.

The point isn't that either is on the verge of collapsing; the point is that the latter indeed matters.

You sought to debunk this, and I will say you failed to do so.

Demand for dollars matters. I think that's the moral of the story I'm spinning. You seem to be seeking to explain this moral away, through what I would call irrelevancies.


It's an article I read a few years ago and have occasionally linked to when the topic came up. I make no attempt to defend it, only its conclusion. You quite rightly pointed out that it makes little sense to compare China's dollar holdings to the dollar price of daily crude oil production.

I would argue the foreign exchange turnover with dollars (i.e. where the dollar is on one side of the trade) is the relevant number for comparison, as a measure of the daily demand/supply for dollars. In that case, the dollar demand for daily crude oil production would still be only a blip on the radar though. Agree? Disagree?
#15022088
Crantag wrote:I didn't make any strawman, I believe.


Just dropping by to clarify the strawman being your statement that "JohnRawls putting forward some kind of agenda here". No offense and nothing else.

As I said, there's nobody on PoFo powerful enough to make a difference in Venezuela, and there are not enough people here to make such a difference anyways, so in practice accusing anybody pushing any kind of serious agenda here is a non-argument.
  • 1
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 53

Actually, it does not contain the judge’s actual w[…]

You should stick with what you know as an engin[…]

“Iceworm”

If I'm a troll, at least I'm a troll who knows […]

The Roger Stone trial was a result of the Mueller […]