Also a two party system with the one they consider being centrist having an ethnic supremacy wing.
That’s mostly result of being occupied by a militant fascist nation who tried to do several decades of cultural genocide.
The people’s power party’s version also has an ethnic supremacy wing, but for the Japanese. The new right movement somehow has some weird Koreans that want to restore imperial Japanese power in Korea.
In all fairness, I doubt he remembers making that promise in the first place.
Eh… Lemmy is already a lot like reddit in the very beginning, just more extreme.
I think a big problem with Lemmy is that even the large instances only have a few terminally online posters, so a lot of the communities get warped by those posters biases.
Right now Hexbear is having a little internal conflict between the mods and some posters over the harassment of lgbtq and POC. The mods started out handing out temporary bans to offenders and then people started freaking out because no one was posting shit.
Too bad anyone who doesn’t adhere to their specific definition of imperialism is a neoliberal in their view.
Don’t want to support a right winged authoritarian government that is actively engaging in imperialism…? What a lib.
Lol, and America’s military is only used to spread freedom…
You guys are just pissing on each other and calling it rain.
Have you told them that? Because they have already officially annexed 4 different oblast…
Why turn Ukraine into Cambodia when you could just order your troops to go home instead…?
The whole wanting Ukraine as a buffer state doesn’t really make sense when you’re just annexing the buffer territory anyways.
SWIFT already handles a diversity of currencies including Renminbi](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1189498/share-of-global-payments-by-currency/), so that’s not what CIPS is about.
Swift handles customer-initiated and institutional payments but excludes trade. Foreign currency reserves are mainly for trading between countries.
an alternative to the imperial core’s transaction system.
World systems theory is an abstract concept, that doesn’t account for an anti imperialist movement. Just take it from Immanuel Wallerstein, the person who created it.
“There are today no socialist systems in the world-economy any more than there are feudal systems because there is only one world system. It is a world-economy and it is by definition capitalist in form”
By the theory you are utilizing, China is not an alternative to “the imperial core” it’s trying to take the belt.
Implying that BANCOR is anything like a gold standard only shows that you don’t have even a Wikipedia-level understanding of BANCOR.
Lol, BANCOR was named after French for Bank Gold. It is a standardized monetary system for trade based on gold.
Sure, but that vote hasn’t actually done anything, and countries continue to trade with Russia. And the Global South countries haven’t curtailed their relations with Russia one whit.
It’s almost like nations are motivated by self interest, and not some over-arching political polarization…
They’re building an alternative system to SWIFT, they’re trading in each others’ currencies to avoid the dollar
The majority of countries utilizing CIPS isn’t because they’re trying to create a multipolar geopolitical future. It’s because it’s simply a good idea to diversify your reserve currency, especially if your currency is unstable. In all likelihood if the yuan is able to show long periods of stability, the global South will be operating within SWIFT and CIPS.
The BANCOR idea is just wishful thinking, no one is migrating back to some kind of gold standard anytime soon.
That’s the whole problem with trying to break down geopolitics into set polarized factions. It makes annotating history a bit easier, but it completely forgoes any nuance.
My dude, nothing in that blog supports your claim.
First of all, it’s talking about the metallurgy of the 16th century and after, which is after Japan had imported blast furnaces. Secondly, it ignores the amount of labour needed to actually produce refined steel from iron sands, which ultimately dictates the quality of the finished product.
This isnt a debatable topic, any steel made from iron sands before modern electromagnetic sorting contains a large amount of impurities when compared to steel made from rock ore.
Even during WW2 the Japanese had a hard time producing high quality steel even with the use of blast furnaces, because the iron sands contains a large amount of titanium.
This blog which falls over itself trying to engage in revisionist history, can only claim that the quality was “perfectly fine”…not good.
That’s not true, no matter how many times you make that unsupported claim.
You are conflating the elemental molecule of iron with the finished product of an alloy of carbonized iron aka as steel.
Yes, there isn’t a molecular difference between the iron found in sand vs the iron found in rock ore. However, the medium in which you harvest your iron and how you’re able to heat that iron, dictates the quality not your final product.
Lol, my dude. No one is claiming that modern japanese steel is of poor quality.
Im speaking of the time period contemporary with the accusation. You know, how arguments typically work…
Do you think the guns Japanese Samurai used were made from steel refined from sand?
Just pointing out this one because it’s funny. Yes, a lot of the early firearms made in Japan were still made from iron sand (Satetsu). Which was the main source of iron in Japan until the 16th century.
According to whom?
The reason why Japanese iron is inferior is because of the source of the iron itself, they utilized iron sand instead of rock ore. Rock ore can be made up to 90% ferrous material while the iron sand contains as little as 2%.
This means when you smelt your source material into blooms of iron and slag, the blooms made from sand iron were much smaller. Instead of utilizing a single bloom to make a sword, the Japanese had to work several blooms together. Which is much more labour intensive, and can lead to a lot of imperfections in the final product.
This is why katanas were made out of so little material, and had to be handled with care. They were much more fragile pieces than similar swords made in Korea and China at the time.
Plus, the Japanese developed their iron working much later than their mainland contemporaries, as they never independently invented furnace technology. The technology for furnaces was imported, most likely from the Korean peninsula.
I think the first sentence is probably enough to make anyone not afflicted with a eurocentric brain want to palm some face.
I think excusing it as a “not serious” statement is dangerous, as a lot of people even on Lemmy won’t second guess it.
The belief that the west is the origin of all science and culture is surprisingly pervasive, especially in the tech industry.
Lol, I’m not gonna bother breaking down your arguments again. You clearly aren’t interested in any kind of honest discourse. The constant flip flop between being purposely obtuse and then aggressively pedantic is a wild way of trying to get your point across.
It’s actually kind of impressive that you can work in a variety of different logical fallacies into so many of the responses while never addressing the original topic.
Have a great rest of your day.
China has been actively dumping US securities for years now. Given the openly hostile stance US is taking towards China, I fully expect that this trend will only accelerate going forward https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202303/1287406.shtml
And yet there is obviously still enough demand for US securities to allow the US to borrow more money every year.
oil is a small portion of Russian overall economy.
It’s like 30-40% of their federal revenue and funds the entirety of their national wealth fund… Which is what they are utilizing instead of issuing securities. I would hardly call it a small portion of their economy.
The whole point of buying securities is that you expect them to retain value, hence why it’s important for them to be backed by something tangible.
The whole point of buying securities is to have a reserve of foreign currency with high liquidity at large volumes. Gold is tangible, but it holds no inherent value, it isn’t exactly the easiest thing to move around the globe, and is a fairly easy market to disrupt if attempting to liquidate at significant volumes. There’s a reason everyone moved away from the gold standard in the first place.
That’s a process of issuing currency, you’re not borrowing anything from anybody.
Ahh, yes. Lending value and then being paid back that value with interest isn’t “borrowing”. I have some calls to make to some credit card companies…
Fluctuations in trade obviously impact domestic economy, but they can be weathered and they’re not catastrophic in the long run.
I think you’re moving the goal post here… Also, “can be weathered and they’re not catastrophic in the long run” requires supporting evidence.
That’s precisely what Russia illustrated at the start of the war when the west put the most severe sanctions it could come up with.
How? The Russian government moved to a war time economy, growth isn’t exactly a surprise in that scenario. The hard part is sticking the landing, what happens if they are succeeded or fail in Ukraine? It’s not like war actually creates material value that is tangible and lasting for the majority of citizens.
Misallocation of labour and resources as I’ve explained several different ways in this very thread.
And what causes the misallocation of labour and resources…? You are just utilizing cyclical logic.
Politics encompass more than simply allocation of resources. In this particular case, the politics were that Yeltsin decided he’d rather be the president of Russia than a deputy of USSR
So economic collapses are always caused by a misallocation of resources and productive forces… but not in the case of the USSR. Their economic collapse was solely because of Yeltsin. Got it…
economic decline was the core reason, then you wouldn’t have seen high level of public support for USSR.
We weren’t talking about the dissolution of the USSR, when I brought up them as an example I was solely talking about the economic crisis of the late 80’s and 90’s.
You’d see a situation that’s similar to what we see in US today where majority of the population no longer believes that their country is working in their interest.
You’re conflating voting to keep the USSR and “believing the country no longer working for their interest”. It’s not like 30% of the country is voting to change their nationality/economic system.
grew up in USSR, so I’m speaking from personal experience here. The kinds of horrors that are happening in US today, were completely beyond imagination.
A bit anecdotal don’t you think? I’m sure if I asked some nepo baby if America is doing well I’d get the same exact answer as someone who grew up in the projects.
The shortages started after the dissolution, and introduction of liberal reforms. One thing USSR did quite well was ensuring that everyone had a decent minimum standard of living.
Your link is from 83’, aka not the late 80s and early 90s. Here’s one from 1990
Again, we were originally talking about a specific monetary policy. You seem to be wanting to bring this all back to a gish gallop about the Soviet Union, and not even about their economic policy.
Again, that’s my original point that labor and resources aren’t being allocated in the interest of the majority which is leading to discontent and civil unrest among the public.
And how does civil unrest connect back to debt monetization? How is modern Russia allocating nearly half of their federal spending on the military and “secret” spending, serving the interest of the majority?
I’m not arguing against backing debt with securities though.
What was the whole point of the entire conversation?
What I’ve been saying is that Russia is in a good position to do so.
I don’t agree with your assessment. If they were able to sell securities they would be selling more securities, it’s kinda a no brainer. However, securities are susceptible to sanction activities. They’d rather use their gold reserves as a way to move around sanctions than to give the US another easily trackable and sanctionable resource.
The main item with high liquidity that’s not being heavily targeted by sanctions is oil and gas. But, utilizing those for securities would effect revenue already earmarked for the Fed and their national monetary fund.
I never claimed Russia is on the brink of collapse or anything. So long as oil stays above $60 a barrel, allowing them to fund their nwf and maintain wartime spending, they’ll probably be fine for a while. But that doesn’t mean they can solve indefinite deficit spending via “printing money like the US”.
It’s very obviously shrinking in the long run given that now there’s a whole alternate world economy forming around BRICS
If US debt is growing at an ever faster past, that logically demands that us securities are being sold at an ever higher pace…
China is one of the largest buyers of US securities. Having a large foreign exchange reserve is beneficial for export economics whose government mainly relies on vat taxes for revenue.
hence why sanctions against Russia failed in the first place. So, it’s pretty clear that Russia would have no problem backing their security with tangible stuff that countries need.
Sanctions failed because oil is still 80$ a barrel and the vast majority of governments are run by people wanting to line pockets.
It’s an example of a tangible asset Russia can back securities with
The whole point of buying securities is that they are liquid assets that can be traded as or like currency.
Borrowing money in a currency you yourself issue is a nonsensical concept.
It’s not really a radical concept…? Especially considering that every major economy does some form of debt monetization.
There is a difference between domestic market and international trade. The value of the currency domestically is not directly related to its trade value.
I think “Not only that, but currency being valued lower internationally actually plays in favor of the government in a country that’s primarily an exporter of goods.” Is kinda proof that there is a direct correlation. In a globalized economy domestic and international markets are inherently intertwined.
These collapses all directly relate to the decline in material conditions.
You don’t say…so what is causing the decline in material conditions?
Meanwhile, the dissolution of USSR was primarily political in nature.
Isn’t how we allocate productive forces always political in nature?
The economy of USSR was certainly in a far better shape than US is today where millions of people are currently starving, unable to get healthcare, or even afford housing.
You really think that the current US economy is doing worse than the Soviet Union in the late 80’s and early 90’s?
Food shortages were rampant in the 90s, even in Moscow. If we were utilizing the same metrics as America for “starving” (aka food insecurity) then the majority of the Soviet Union would have been “starving”.
Healthcare by the late 80s in the USSR had fallen tremendously, mostly because their transition to prioritizing outpatient care, which caused their hospital system started falling apart.
As far as housing… Yeah, America is always gonna win that particular shitty trophy. Though that’s not exactly because of an inability of production, moreso an inability to empathize with the working class.
I’m not claiming that America has a great economy, or that capitalism is the best economic system to distribute resources. Just that certain economic principals are relevant wether you have a command economy or not. China is a socialist state and they still back their debt with securities, because not doing so leads to currency instabilities in both the domestic and international sectors of the economy.
Collapses aren’t caused by loss of production capacity, they’re caused by misallocation of resources that leads to an unacceptable decline in the standard of living for the majority.
Oh, like 39% of the federal budget going to the military? You don’t think that might catch up with them at some point?
No thanks fam, I’m going to continue believing the 90s were 10-15 years ago max. I’m not old, I’m just tired all the time, no more questions please.