By financial system they still mean a swift/Cips/sfms/spfs alternative?
this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2024
60 points (92.9% liked)
World News
32301 readers
335 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
all 39 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
They mean a supranational currency aimed at transforming international trade settlement that sounds very similar to the idea of Bancor that Keynes proposed. The key idea is to establish a common unit of account and clearing system for international transactions. This would prevent the dominance of national currencies in international trade, promoting a more equitable financial system that's not dominated by the currency of any single country.
This concept would tackle persistent trade imbalances by incentivizing countries to maintain balanced trade, as excessive surpluses or deficits would incur penalties. The idea also has potential to enhance financial stability by countering speculative capital flows that often destabilized exchange rates and caused financial crises.
They should start thinking of a plug and play system similar to activity pub for all that finance old fashioned system
That's sort of what Bancor is, in programming terms you can think of it as a common protocol that you can adapt your currency to, and then it can be used with anybody who's also implementing this protocol.
I wonder what kind of discussions take place when they implement these kind protocols (thinking of swift):
- we want to avoid dirty money banks? No, that's ok
- we decide who can enter this network based on the fee they'll pay
- we have to crush any competitors in the world, we'll deal all transactions, it's not that complicated, little effort for big control
I think the interesting part with the Bancor approach is that it would avoid a lot of these problems since it's strictly a settlement currency.
So that if (hopefully not when) China invades Taiwan, they won't get hit with sanctions as bad as Russia did.
🤣 Yeah, good luck with that.
Not sure what this comment means, BRICS has been rising in membership and stability.
Westerners thinking the rest of the world can't possibly get on without them will never stop being hilarious.
Look at Russia's economic growth in spite of the sanctions.
There's a world economy outside US control and it is only growing. Where do you think the inflation is coming from?
That's the thing about a war time economy, you produce one tank, and BOOM you've added $3.5MM to your GDP. A single SU-35? About 16MM added to GDP.
You can't eat tanks and jets though, the labor and resources used to maintain a war footing are vast, and must be poached from other areas of the economy. The longer you maintain this posture, the more dramatic the contraction.
Gazprom posted a loss for the first time in decades. They sell one of the most profitable substances ever discovered by man and they still couldn't turn a profit.. despite how little the sanctions are impacting them, no less!
The military industry is around 6% of Russian economy, it's not a war time economy LMFAO. By contrast, by the end of WW2, around 40% of US economy was devoted to the military. That's what an actual war time economy looks like. It's absolutely hilarious how people just keep parroting this nonsense without thinking about it even for a second.
The main reason for such rapid growth of Russian economy is due to the fact that decoupling from the west created a lot of economic niches to be filled. Meanwhile, the west effectively doing capital controls for Russia forced the oligarchs to invest their money domestically.
Turning tanks in a storage base into tanks destroyed in Ukraine is not economic growth, dispite what gdp would indicate.
Go read up on the percentage of the Russian GDP spent on the military then delete your comment. 😂
About 10% of gdp vs 3 to 4% pre war?
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/russias-unprecedented-war-budget-explained
Again, even if you inflate it to 10%, that's very clearly not a war economy. 90% of the economy isn't oriented towards the war, and the war has practically no impact on day to day lives of the vast majority of the people.
It's oriented towards the war, but it's not a total war economy yet because the population wouldn't tolerate it. It's similar to the US at war in Vietnam, spending only got up to 8% to 10% of gdp.
Most of US economy isn't productive manufacturing output, it's stuff like service industry, software shops, financial economy, etc. Some of it, such as the health insurance industry, is actively harmful to society. There's a great article explaining how US lost most of its productive economy at this point.
https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2021/08/the-value-of-nothing-capital-versus-growth/
Industrial output in US accounts for something like 15% of the overall economy, and steel production levels are comparable to Russia. That's a pretty good proxy for the size of industry in a country. So, when you compare US military spending to the productive economy in the country, then it's a very high percentage of the industrial GDP.
Also, the article you linked counts all the military adjacent economy to get to the 10% number, US military spending would also look a lot higher if we did that. US defense spending is currently well over $1 trillion a year.
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/tom-dispatch-america-defense-budget-bigger-than-you-think/
Meanwhile, US industrial output is around $2 trillion.
[removed by mod]
You think tanks do contribute, or that Russia is growing into new war unrelated sectors?
Russia is obviously growing into new war unrelated sectors because the military industry accounts for only 6% of Russian GDP. Plenty of economic niches have been opened up by decoupling from the west, and many of those are being filled by domestic businesses. That's where majority of the growth is coming from.
Could you give an example of these new sectors? And what is the real gdp growth, taking into account the actual inflation?
Here's some analysis of Russia's economic situation https://youtu.be/ecdxs8Al424
Manufacturing, food production, research, tech, you name it. Meanwhile, I'll reiterate my advice that I gave you last time. Go back through the channels you watch, look at their past predictions, and compare how they hold up today. If a lot of what they say turns out to be bullshit, as is the case with this channel, then maybe find a more reliable source. You seem to be a real sucker for these propaganda channels. Weren't you peddling Perun last time?
Could you link a source for growth in those areas? Especially accounting for real inflation?
I've found it's pretty good matching up with predictions.
Russia—moved from the upper-middle-income to the high-income category:
Economic activity in Russia was influenced by a large increase in military related activity in 2023, while growth was also boosted by a rebound in trade (+6.8%), the financial sector (+8.7%), and construction (+6.6%). These factors led to increases in both real (3.6%) and nominal (10.9%) GDP, and Russia’s Atlas GNI per capita grew by 11.2%.
I’ve found it’s pretty good matching up with predictions.
If you bother going back through the videos in the channel, then it's pretty obviously not matching up with how things developed.
Russia is in for a harsh wakeup when the Ukrainian war ends (or in 2026 if the war is still ongoing IMO). Their economy is "looking good" right now only because it has been switched to a war economy, and the Kremlin injects tons of cash in it, but lots of it isn't useful for the russians, it's just getting destroyed in the war.
Also the ruble is close to a dead currency, nobody wants to trade in it any more.
I implore you to learn what a war economy actually is. Spending 6% of the GDP on military industry is not it. Here's a starter for you https://online.norwich.edu/online/about/resource-library/cost-us-wars-then-and-now
[removed by mod]
Nobody trusts China’s economic stats.
Except the IMF, World Bank, Moody, Standard and Poor, etc.
Meanwhile, Bitcoin
lol
Except the IMF, World Bank, Moody, Standard and Poor, etc.
They don't trust it, they just have no other figures to work off. China has a long history of faking numbers or suddenly stopping the publishing of numbers when it can make the party look bad. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-16/china-is-hiding-more-and-more-data-from-the-rest-of-the-world
lol
Ok, be mad. A 15 year trend of growth on average no matter how you measure it: market cap, number of nodes, transaction volume, transaction capacity, etc. If you have thought Bitcoin was a scam or a bubble about to burst or whatever, you've been wrong 15 years in a row, maybe it's worth reconsidering. Because it's not just crypto bros using or investing in it now, it's national treasures, it's big banks and finance. But you know, on year 16 you'll finally be proven correct, right?
Oh, well if the billionaire rag says china is lying, it must be true, for sure
They don’t trust it, they just have no other figures to work off.
That's why they publish it. Not like there are (western adaptations of) the Li Keqiang Index
- At least have the decency to post the archive link https://archive.md/sgBQK
- Youth unemployment in the article:
Calculating the actual employment rate is complex and it’s plausible the government decided the changing nature of the economy and labor patterns means their current model isn’t accurately reflecting reality.
Obtuse way to say that the category 16-24 olds are studying and not part of the labour force
- Landsales: Communists don't like speculation with real estate and land. Shocker. Not like they've been announcing a shift away from real estate to EV/Solar Panels/etc.
- Currency Reserves, Bond Transactions, Academic Information, Politicians' Biographies:
President Xi Jinping’s ideological battle with the US has also motivated Beijing to ringfence data it believes could advantage the Biden administration.
Based.
A 15 year trend of growth on average no matter how you measure it: market cap, number of nodes, transaction volume, transaction capacity, etc.
If you think that's the critique of bitcoin then you have been blinded by techbros optimizim on the tech. Also it's funny how you wave away bitcoin using up 1% of global electricity usage lol
yeah but whats stopping rich people from working together to get 60% of the network and then change things as they deem fit?
Firstly, rich people already do this with our existing currency systems. So that has to be what we're comparing against. And nobody has done this because there's zero benefit to doing so.
The thing you're talking about is a 51% attack and the answer is:
- The cost of doing so, which continues to increase and is around a trillion dollars currently. Even if you had the money, there are very significant logistical hurdles which make it difficult and means people would see it coming a mile away. They don't have to buy coins, they have to buy energy and equipment to turn that energy into mining and they have to keep buying energy as long as they want their attack to continue. That trillion dollar figure is for one block worth of attack (10 minutes). The longer you attack, the more the cost per block goes up too.
- There is no benefit to doing so. The second your attack ends, the network reverts to the true "main chain", the system is designed to be really robust
There are only two things you can do with a 51% attack
- "double-spend" meaning you spend the same coins twice. But if somebody is going to trade you 1 trillion dollars of stuff, they're going to wait for more than a few blocks confirmation. The scenarios where this makes any economic sense for anybody to attempt are basically zero.
- Delay (censor) transactions which will go through the second your attack ends
Even if you controlled 51% of the network you cannot:
- Spend money you don't have the key for
- Increase the supply beyond 21 million coins
- Otherwise make invalid transactions
Because all other nodes would reject your transactions as invalid.
Youre just gonna recreate what we have today with more energy usage. So why not fix the core societal problem?