
America’s aggressive use of sanctions endangers the dollar’s reign - prostoalex
https://www.economist.com/briefing/2020/01/18/americas-aggressive-use-of-sanctions-endangers-the-dollars-reign
======
sschueller
For the rest of the world this is a good thing.

Why would the United States be the one to decide if Germany is allowed to
build a pipeline to Russia or not?

Image if it was Germany that used sanctions to prevent the US from building a
pipeline to Mexico. Would you be ok with that?

~~~
headcanon
The United States' main geopolitical imperative is to maintain global
hegemony. Part of this is ensuring regional powers are either allied (in the
case of NATO countries or Saudi Arabia) or contained (in the case of Russia
and Iran).

It is a fundamental rule of Geopolitics that every country assert itself to
the best of its abilities with the strengths they have. One of Russia's
biggest strengths is natural resources. It is advantageous to them to have
Western Europe dependent on its oil and natural gas supplies.

George Friedman explains in this book [1] that Russia may attempt to assert
itself to a greater extent in the next few decades, possibly going so far as
to annex a Baltic country or two. Today this would be inconceivable, but if
Russia has the off switch for Germany's economy, NATO's response is
drastically weakened.

Whatever scenario may come to pass, European reliance on Russian natural
resources disrupts the US's containment strategy which it needs in order to
maintain its dominant position in the region. So yes, it will say something if
it feels like that is under threat.

Not saying this is a good or bad thing. Depends on your perspective and what
country you live in.

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/Next-100-Years-Forecast-
Century/dp/07...](https://www.amazon.com/Next-100-Years-Forecast-
Century/dp/0767923057)

~~~
baybal2
"United States have no geopolitical strategy, but a lot of self proclaimed
geopolitical strategists."

I once have heard this position from US ambassador in Kazakhstan on a private
reception event.

The guy told people he expected a visit to a *stan country to be like a visit
to a warzone.

He was learning martial arts, hostage negotiation, and been mentored by
multiple self proclaimed experts on "warlord politics" of the region.

There was no end to his disappointment when he came to understanding that all
that geopolitical BS he learned was for nothing, and he came to station the
most boring post-Soviet hillbilly town.

I think most Americans, even the most educated ones tend to greatly overthink
"geopolitical conspiracies"

Ex-USSR fiefdoms, Russia included, are ran by very simple people, without any
geopolitical ambitions.

For them, blackmailing Germany and other wealth nations in Europe by
threatening to close the tap has no political story to it at all, just plainly
a way to extort some extra bucks, and show the world how big their balls are.

~~~
linkregister
_> Ex-USSR fiefdoms, Russia included, are ran by very simple people, without
any geopolitical ambitions._

The people of Georgia, Crimea, and the rest of Ukraine would beg to differ.

~~~
baybal2
How to say... Russians invasions are acts of war, squarely and simple, but
they do so without any tinfoil "geopolitical conspiracy" in mind.

There is no bigger "grand plan" to them than to an 8th century Viking raid:
more subjects, loot, and territories to use to stage further invasions.

Danes cared more for how tasty the British were, before they started to care
about the British throne and court politics in the bigger Post-Roman world.

~~~
eru
The conquest of Crimea was probably more about providing a distraction for
domestic audiences than anything else?

~~~
wanderer2323
The "conquest" of Crimea was a response to an implied threat to a natural gas
trade with Europe in the followup of a western-sponsored coup.

(to be even more specic, Crimean events were mostly about regaining the
control of the Black Sea Fleet naval base, while Donbass events were about
reacting to a hostile coup, but the two things are closely related)

It was also an object lesson to all the minor powers in the region: you cannot
take US money to have a small victorious colour revolution anymore. Not in
Russia's backyard.

edit: oh wow downvotes, I am so surprised /s

~~~
dang
Please don't go on about downvotes. It's against the site guidelines, is
tedious, and usually turns out to be wrong. In the end your post got almost no
downvotes relative to upvotes.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
IfOnlyYouKnew
It also endangers the basic principle of a rules-based, open world.

If you think that's a good idea, imagine what happens to an economy when civil
law and contracts are not enforced, even without any threat of violence.

To pick just one example: if you're trying to get a loan to build a factory or
buy a house, it's _good for you_ that there are laws and trusted courts that
would cause you a whole lot of pain if you failed to repay.

It's no different in international politics, only that treaties between states
are backed not by some external force, but by each country having a strong
interest in remaining within that system that outweighs any short-term
benefits from skirting its responsibility.

I guess some of this is mildly counter-intuitive. But really there is game
theory far more complex than this regularly understood on primary school
schoolyards.

~~~
philwelch
There's no such thing as a rules-based, open world. International relations is
a state of anarchy and perpetual conflict that only fleetingly resembles peace
during those periods where there's a global hegemon that can enforce those
"rules". Within a country, those courts are the hegemon.

"Each country having a strong interest in remaining within that system that
outweighs any short-term benefits from skirting its responsibility" was the
theory prior to 1914 as to why the Great War would never actually happen.

~~~
zozbot234
> There's no such thing as a rules-based, open world.

You're living in one right now. Anarchy need not be synonymous with chaos,
especially if disputes and conflicts are relatively unimportant (due to easy
defense making 'rights' self-enforcing). The point of courts is then to
arbitrate disputes in a publicly-visible way, enforcement is relatively less
important.

~~~
corporate_shi11
The only reason courts have authority to arbitrate disputes is because they
are backed up by the will and authority of the government, which in turn has a
monopoly on the use of force in society.

~~~
geggam
Now you are bumping on the reason I think the founders put the 2nd amendment
in the bill of rights. Govts have to be balanced at some point by the will of
the people

~~~
rayiner
Of course that’s the reason. Different people use different euphemisms, for
the same reason we do now. (“Defend against tyranny.”) But we’re talking about
an amendment the founders wrote shortly after they took up arms to overthrow
their government. It’s clear what they were talking about:
[https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/04/second-amendment-
hist...](https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/04/second-amendment-history-
lesson-times-ted-cruz/)

> Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in
> almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce
> unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed,
> and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be,
> on any pretense, raised in the United States.

That was Noah Webster, dictionary guy. He’s clear that the second amendment
embodies a personal right to bear arms (so the citizens aren’t disarmed, like
in Europe) so they can overthrow the government.

~~~
zozbot234
Note, the point is not to overthrow the government in any real sense, but
rather _to make it incredibly costly and perhaps outright infeasible for the
government to actively use state-organized violence against its own people_ ,
as dictatorships everywhere are wont to do. Combine an armed populace with a
strong tradition of being loyal to the Constitution and its principles first
and foremost, _even in the context of a standing army or similar_ , and it's
especially clear what the 2nd Amendment was supposed to achieve.

~~~
jacobwilliamroy
The federal government is light-years ahead of whatever private citizens can
get their hands on; 71% of americans are overweight or obese; 30% of americans
have some kind of chronic pain.

If a shooting war broke out between the federal government and private
citizens, the National Guard would just steamroll right on through them like
they were made of thin air.

I think that the best way to exercise the second amendment is to organize
militias at the state level, but even then, there still isnt enough cash for
proper defenses against the federal government.

~~~
zozbot234
> ...the National Guard would just steamroll right on through them...

Even assuming that they _could_ do this (which is plausibly quite wrong, as
defense tactics can be very effective), what's the incentive? The people who
serve in the National Guard _are_ citizens themselves (who have sworn to
uphold the Constitution) and every bit of effective defense makes it that much
easier for them to defect while keeping plausible deniability. By contrast, if
you've confiscated all the guns away (or bought them back) that dynamic just
can't happen, at least not nearly as easily.

The presence of an armed citizenry _does_ make for a huge difference in this
scenario. No doubt about it.

~~~
pm90
Their incentive would be a manufactured one, painting the citizenry as part of
some conspiracy/extreme party etc. Just look at how many Republican news
outlets continuously portray the other side as extreme and crazy and
dangerous.

Just having possession of armed weapons makes absolutely no difference to a
modern, well equipped American military force. We’re talking about Armored
Personal Carriers and Tanks rolling through cities, all communications being
monitored or cut off. The arms may make it hard for the occupying force as
there will be more shootouts but retributions will keep most of the populace
under control.

The dynamic of Armed militias being a deterrent to a military occupation made
sense in the 18th century but don’t make much sense today.

~~~
rayiner
> We’re talking about Armored Personal Carriers and Tanks rolling through
> cities, all communications being monitored or cut off.

Assad literally used tanks against the civil uprising, and wasn’t able to stop
it. (And doing so caused part of the army to defect.) Gaddafi was killed by
the National Liberation Army, which initially armed itself by capturing tanks
and weapons from military stockpiles.

~~~
pm90
Was either the Libyan or Syrian populace armed to the teeth? Did the
availability of weapons (or the lack thereof) have any impact on what
happened?

Comparing Syrian and Libyan military forces to American ones is also a
stretch. We’re talking about orders of magnitudes of difference in armaments
and intelligence.

------
Animats
Whether China's yuan should be freely convertible to other currencies is
something the PRC has struggled with for years. A freely convertible yuan
would increase China's influence on the world financial system, but it would
also increase the influence of the world financial system on China. And it
would require much easing, if not elimination, of China's exchange controls.

A decade ago, a freely convertible yuan was seen as likely. But China has
backed off from that. Xi Jinping's "China 2025" is about autarky - reducing
China's dependency on the rest of the world.

So, the yuan as a world currency isn't really happening yet.

Euros, though...

~~~
MR4D
The yuan won’t be freely convertible because that would open the floodgates to
capital flight from China. As long as that possibility exists, free
convertibility will not.

~~~
cinquemb
Yeah, on top of the issues of infrastructure around
payments/settlements/collateral management/kyc laws that often go ignored in
these discussions as well as the high correlation of lowering (euro)dollar
usage globally with lower global growth rates… ideally you'd have higher
growth rates with lower (euro)dollar usage if there was any serious
alternative.

Fundamentally speaking, I think non CB backed cryptos (combined with hedging
tools via futures/options/swaps/ndfs/etc) have a better chance because they
can be used to lower the costs intl of payments/settlements/etc, esp in these
times when the trust in central banking becomes more and more contested. But I
only see this happening slowly until there's a catalyst to push this to the
next level.

~~~
erikpukinskis
I would expect cryptocurrency to ascend in a series of hops, “chaos is a
ladder” style. Every time a central bank somewhere takes home their toys,
crypto will click forward.

~~~
cinquemb
Yeah, that's probably a better way to put what I think I wanted to get at.

------
aazaa
The lack of any viable alternative has kept the dollar in its current dominant
position.

That alternative won't exactly announce itself so that US policymakers can
rationally decide to change course about the weaponization of money.

It will instead, sneak up on the country in the form of weird little
experiments that don't seem worth the time and effort to track or regulate. By
the time one of them becomes the obvious marketplace disruptor, the die will
have been cast.

~~~
LatteLazy
Isn't the answer the euro? Stable, inflation proof, light or no sanctions. As
brexit proceeds and more financial services move to mainland Europe, you won't
even have to worry about the brits messing with it...

I seem to remember the EU agreeing to setup a psudo bank to deal direct with
Iran so they can bypass restrictions on trade?

Edit: here it is! [https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dw.com/en/eu-mechanism-
for-...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dw.com/en/eu-mechanism-for-trade-
with-iran-now-operational/a-49407662)

~~~
ApolloFortyNine
Didn't the whole Greece debt situation show why that could be a problem? One
country's debt crisis caused the euro to tank 30% in a very short time. It
ended up rebounding, but pretty much forced the EU to handle the situation
(write off debt and provide low interest loans for the rest) or risk the whole
thing exploding.

It seems like your betting on 5-10 countries not failing, when with most
currencies you just have to deal with 1.

Which is probably why it's not currently the reserve currency, one would
assume.

~~~
baybal2
Greece was fiasco for Euro.

It's a lesson learned now, and ECB will hold binge spenders on a leash.

UK can leave EU, Greece or Eastern Europe can not.

~~~
stephen_g
It’s more that the Euro has been a fiasco for Greece, Italy, Portugal and
Spain... It’s fundamentally problematic to have a single exchange rate between
countries with different inflation rates, balances of trade, etc. - because
you can’t have an exchange rate that works for everyone and the value can’t
move between the other economies to balance out the differences.

The only way around that (apart from going to separate currencies with
floating exchange rates) is to have some kind of fiscal balancing method. In
the US, for example, federal taxing and spending tends to do this between the
states. But that is probably politically impossible in the EU (redistribution
from richer countries to poorer is pretty unpopular).

~~~
baybal2
Very easy to do, and that's actually what ECB is now doing as I understood.

They now enforce the limit of how much debt a country can sell, and at what
terms much more rigorously

------
mark_l_watson
James Rikard (author of Currency Wars) in his newest book Aftermath predicts
that the dollar's reserve currency run may soon be over, and special drawing
rights (SDR) reserve currency might only be 1/3 dollars. I think he is
probably correct on this prediction but maybe not on another prediction:
currencies like China's and Russia's might soon be 20% backed by gold. He
makes the point that there is no need for 100% backing from gold since a
smaller percentage would still prevent a country from printing new currency
out of thin air.

I think the dollar has a lot of inertia so it might reign for a long while
longer as reserve currency, but then I also think about how much debt we have.
Our treasury can not account for $21 trillion (ref: Catherine Austin Fitts
[http://solari.com](http://solari.com)) and the amount of consumer,
educational, real estate, etc. of debt worries me, but: I expect a slow burn
of our economy, not falling off of a cliff, economically speaking.

We can adjust to a decade long slow downward economic trajectory, people are
resilient.

~~~
shostack
What would happen to life in the US if the dollar was no longer the global
reserve currency?

~~~
mark_l_watson
I think it would put us on par with other countries, we would lose a nice
advantage. Worst case scenario would be a sharp economic decline, but I
optimistically think it would be a slow leveling out, a slow decline in
consumer purchasing power, limit government expenditures, etc. But, I am not
at all sure what will happen.

~~~
shostack
Do you think that hostile foreign nations are actively trying to end the run
of the petrodollar?

~~~
mark_l_watson
I think the point of the original article is yes, it is in some other
countries interests to end the dollar being the sole reserve currency.

On the other hand, the USA provides stability, so everyone who is rational in
the world should want any transition to be slow. The whole world is in this
together, I think we prosper together, or suffer together. Let’s hope for the
first option.

------
itsumoiru
I just read a related article the other day, claiming the same thing, but with
a different analysis: [https://mises.org/wire/world-looks-abandon-dollar-us-
sanctio...](https://mises.org/wire/world-looks-abandon-dollar-us-sanctions-
tighten-their-grip)

~~~
qroshan
Ha Ha mises.org. What a joke! An institution which has been wrong about
everything for the past 100 years is predicting a dollar cash? What a
surprise!

------
hogFeast
As a point of fact, it isn't true that the dominant currency imposing costs is
new...that has always happened. Britain did it in order to secure continued
use of the £, and the US has done it before now. It is a normal extension of
foreign policy (because finance is not separate from politics, as the Rusal
example shows).

It isn't some kind of authoritarian aberration either. The point is that the
US has most to lose from a system of free trade so is the one who shoulders
most of the burden for securing it. You don't secure something by sitting back
and letting people ride all over it.

And yes, some people who don't want to play by those rules will grouse. But
the system will always lean towards one dominant currency, it is just easier
that way (the UK losing control was was unexpected and took nearly six decades
to play out after the point of obvious decline). The world is awash in
dollars, no need to worry (if anything, the issue is that some are too reliant
on too much dollar funding...not that the world is moving away).

It is kind of unfortunate that the Economist keeps getting worse. The election
of Mango Man and Brexit has truly addled the minds of some generally smart
people (or made clear that their smartness wasn't actual intelligence but an
ability to just parrot whatever they were told was "right").

~~~
thawaway1837
I’m not sure I get your argument. It doesn’t appear the Economist article is
claiming that the dominant currency has only just started imposing costs.

Their claim is that the recent increased costs, and more relevantly their
almost arbitrary nature, hasn’t just led to the usual suspects grousing, but
has also started causing allies who didn’t grouse in the past, to actively
seek and build alternatives.

As a result, the USD may potentially lose its status as the dominant currency
much sooner that it may have otherwise.

~~~
hogFeast
Yes, the main contention of the article is that this is unusual. If you think
it through: the only way this article makes sense is if that claim is
made...otherwise, the US was doing this in the past and it made no difference
(which is true).

I think you are taking a slightly expansive definition of ally. You are
referring to the EU? A significant grouping within the EU does not regard the
US as an ally (particularly economically, ref France bringing down Bretton
Woods...the US is the giving tree here, the more you give, the more the EU
takes)...and all of the people grousing are the usual suspects (China,
Juncker, etc.).

And no, you need to justify an extraordinary claim with extraordinary
evidence. None of this is even remotely extraordinary (and counter to the
fairly obvious evidence of the dollar's position growing...not receding).

------
viburnum
The dollar’s exceptional liquidity makes it more valuable, which is good for
people who have dollars, but it’s bad for people whose costs are in dollars
(American exporters). The dollar’s strength since the earlier 1980s (the first
major flight to liquidity during the era of free movement of capital) has been
terrible for American industry. It’s like Dutch disease, but instead of a
commodity like oil causing unbalanced trade, it’s the dollar itself.

------
m0zg
It's not about whether dollar sucks in absolute terms. It's about whether it
sucks less than other currencies. It's tied to the largest economy in the
world, and the strongest military in the world (importantly, including the
strongest navy as well), by quite a margin, and as such, it's not going
anywhere. You don't need to run faster than the bear, you just need to run
faster than the other guy.

------
tehjoker
This is an interesting article, but exposes the Economist's bias and lack of
an honest historical accounting. While the it is new, interesting, and
important that the world is becoming more skeptical of the dollar, it is kind
of laughable that the only reference to Iraq and sanctions is the ones that
were in the news recently.

Iraq and many other countries have been subject to crippling US sanctions many
times in the past. In the 1990s, sanctions were issued by the Clinton
administration that were so severe that hospitals were scrubbing the floors
with gasoline ([https://theintercept.com/2018/03/21/us-war-iraq-legacy-of-
bl...](https://theintercept.com/2018/03/21/us-war-iraq-legacy-of-blood/)).

[https://reliefweb.int/report/iraq/iraq-study-baghdad-
hospita...](https://reliefweb.int/report/iraq/iraq-study-baghdad-hospitals-
highlights-critical-needs)

"In June, 1991, Medicine For Peace medical teams began working in Baghdad
pediatric hospitals. The following is a description of what they found:

"The hospital was in darkness. Ventilators, incubators, dialysis machines were
not functioning and any patients dependent on these support systems had died.
We made ward rounds with Iraqi physicians, many trained in the US and Great
Britain, who were despondent and demoralized. No x-rays, lab tests, or
possibility of surgery. Worse of all, intravenous fluids and supplemental
feedings for the scores of malnourished children were in short supply, the
pharmacy had exhausted its store of antibiotics for treatable infections, and
there was not one vial of morphine to relieve the pain of children suffering
with tumors on the cancer ward."

Outside of the US, economic sanctions of this magnitude are often regarded as
war crimes. They are routinely deployed against the populations of official US
enemies and have been for some time under the theory that if we make life as
bad as possible for the people, maybe they'll overthrow the regime. Hint: It
usually doesn't work and the regime uses the sanctions to (correctly)
characterize itself as under attack by foreign enemies.

In the modern instance, the case for sanctions in Iraq can only be described
as barbarous bullying. The Iraqi government voted to remove US troops in
response to an unprovoked assasination on an Iranian top general on their soil
while performing what is claimed to be a diplomatic peace mission (another war
crime). In response, the US employs sanctions to bully the Iraqis into
acquiescing to an unending occupation that they have judged does not serve
their interests.

Yanis Varoufakis, the Greek Finance Minister (paraphrased, talking about
austerity in Greece) said that where they used to use tanks, they now use
banks. In the case of Iraq, sadly, tanks, banks, and aerial bombing have all
been used in various combinations at various times.

~~~
linkregister
The modern instance has far less apparent rational motives. The threat of
imposition of sanctions on Iraq is coming almost solely from the President of
the US, framed as a retaliatory gesture. The language used implies the threat
is guided primarily by emotion rather than by a sober _realpolitik_ diplomatic
move.

It appears that most of the government, even most Republicans in Congress,
disagree with the idea. Though Republicans are currently in a vulnerable state
with regards to political pressure from the President, I find it unlikely that
a bill imposing sanctions will be enacted without a significant change after
the 2020 elections.

~~~
thawaway1837
The other major change is that under the current administration America has
been pointing its financial weapons at allies as well.

That’s the major change the article is talking about, without being fully
explicit about it. Russia and China have been wanting to move away from the
dollar for over a decade.

It’s the fact that the EU now also wants to do so that has changed.

The greatest long term impact of Teump’s Iran policy will likely be the
creation of Instex (or more relevant, whatever follows it) that will help the
EU and Asian countries move away from the US as the center of the financial
world.

------
ilaksh
Ever since I saw Ray Dalio's video about the economy and long term debt cycle
I have been really worried.

The thing that scares me more is that we don't hear any politicians talking
about this stuff. In particular presidential candidates. The only one that
seems to actually understand technology and the economy (Yang) is proposing an
increase in entitlements, although hopefully the VAT can improve revenue
somewhat. I know he knows who Ray Dalio is since he mentioned his name.

I think there needs to be a plan for an international system that is not
dominated by one country like the US dollar and is technologically
sophisticated. Some kind of multi-government backed cryptocurrency, possibly
paired with a decentralized resource tracking system.

I feel like there are a bunch of people who think there is no problem and a
bunch on the other side who think the situation is dire. My guess is that
there is a real situation that we have to plan for and it seems like a very
bad idea to put off that planning.

------
fallingfrog
Sanctions are the modern equivalent of siege warfare- using starvation as a
weapon. I’m not sure why it’s looked upon as being a kinder, gentler approach
than dropping bombs on civilians. It’s still violence. People still die.

------
ballarak
There's the possibility that the USG believes the dollar's primacy is going to
come to an end in the relatively near future. There are other factors at play
that could weaken the dollar's status that matter more than sanctions,
including:

(1) The geopolitical shift away from a unipolar world, with the rise of states
such as China.

(2) The upcoming end of the petrodollar, as nations shift to renewable energy.

If you believe the reign of the dollar will come to an end anyways, you might
as well use its power while you have it and throw sanctions around to weaken
your rivals.

~~~
erikpukinskis
This possibility comes along with the rise of a new political brand for the
Republicans: “We do whatever we have to to get ours”. In the early stages
under GW Bush/Rumsfeld this was the lighter “We do whatever we have to to
advance American interests throughout the world” but under Trump/Murdoch it is
now “advance the interests of those who are loyal to me”.

That will play well in an economic crisis. I don’t think the brandmakers for
liberalism in America are prepared for that fight. Right now the brand on the
left is something like “we can and should demand a better wage and better
benefits from Daddy!” but that falls flat in a crisis.

That all said, we’re not in that crisis yet. So perhaps it’s fine to focus on
the present, where we certainly have the money to increase workers benefits.

------
mmmuhd
I read a paper on the implementation of oil trade based on an independent
crypto currency backed by Oil exporting countries, the author laid all out and
how the US will never allow that to happen, sorry I lost the page source.

------
qaq
In reality it does not although would be nice if there were good alternatives.

------
yalogin
Yep that wall has broken down. There are already long term implications to
Trump craziness. What ever he is doing is extremely short sighted and plays
right into China's hands, the one thing he is railing against.

------
LockAndLol
This is behind a paywall. Does anybody have the full article? The first few
paragraphs say nothing more than the title.

Edit:

[https://archive.md/gbAv6](https://archive.md/gbAv6)

\-------------

Maybe this will finally push towards crypto-currencies. Bitcoin doesn't seem
to be a candidate though. 10 minutes for a transaction is too slow.

------
flyGuyOnTheSly
If you were getting a paywall like me, just delete all your economist.com
cookies and block all javascript.

~~~
distant_hat
Oftentimes, just pressing the 'reader' button in Firefox works.

~~~
flyGuyOnTheSly
Interesting, I will try that the next time, thank you!

------
tjenkinsqs
I prefer sanctions a thousand times over war.

Don't we have enough of the endless wars (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria,
etc. from the last 2 administrations?

~~~
UncleSlacky
Sanctions can be just as deadly as warfare, though, and they almost
exclusively affect civilians, and don't get nearly as much media attention as
warfare. From [https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/06/23/starvation-
sanctions...](https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/06/23/starvation-sanctions-
are-worse-than-overt-warfare/)

"Starvation sanctions kill people. Tens of thousands of Venezuelans have
reportedly already died as a result of this administration’s relentless
assault on their economy; those human beings are no less dead than they would
have been if the US had killed them by dropping cluster bombs on Caracas. Yet
these deaths have received virtually no mainstream media coverage, and
Americans, while they strongly oppose attacking Iran militarily, have had very
little to say about Trump’s attacks on the nation’s economy. The economy which
people use to feed their children, to care for their elderly and their sick.

I’m titling this essay “Starvation Sanctions Are Worse Than Overt Warfare”,
and I mean it. I am not saying that starvation sanctions are more destructive
or deadly than overt military force in and of themselves; what I am saying is
that the overall effect is worse, because there’s no public accountability for
them and because they deliberately target civilians.

If the US were to launch a barrage of Tomahawk missiles into an Iranian suburb
with the goal of killing civilians, there’d be international outrage and the
cohesion of the US-centralized power alliance would take a major hit.
Virtually everyone would recognize this as an unforgivable war crime. Yet
America will be able to kill the same number of civilians with the same
deliberate intention of inflicting deadly force, and it would suffer
essentially no consequences at all. There’s no public or international
pressure holding that form of violence at bay, because it’s invisible and
poorly understood."

------
vinceguidry
The dollar is still reigning? News to me.

------
FpUser
No s.. Sherlock. It is starting to look more like a tantrum.

------
1996
I guess this is good for bitcoin! Good enough liquidity, can't be blocked,
many tumblers, cheap transactions - maybe it will become a preferred way for
international settlements, replacing gold?

------
geggam
Given the amount of global debt does it really matter ?

[https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/13/economy/global-debt-
record/in...](https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/13/economy/global-debt-
record/index.html)

Its like the world is playing musical chairs and at some point the music will
stop and not everyone will have a seat

~~~
DeonPenny
Thats not how global debt works.

~~~
Supermancho
I'm pretty sure it does. The more debt increases against a property, the more
valuation is boosted since the price of the unique property is bundled with
the debt.

This is how nations have been looking at debt for some time. Yeah, you can
make a margin call on the US (directly or via a partner), but what are you
going to replace that resource pipeline with?

