Hit the like button at the top of the page to like this essay. Use the share and re-stack buttons to share this across social media. Leave a comment if the mood strikes you to do so.
great stuff. the BRICS concept is a triumph of marketing that somehow became reality. (One the USA’s greatest strengths and weaknesses!) Thanks for pointing out the absurdity of it all
But I don't think that's the full picture. I think we can all admit that the real conversation isn't around a common/supranational alternative currency at this point. It's about normalizing the use of other, strong/stable currencies (attached to significant markets) to conduct strategic trade that get States around western sanctions, including with alternatives to SWIFT/IBAN. The war in Ukraine has showed us that this is not only possible, but, desirable. In other words, internationally, the US remains dominant both economically and politically. Therefore, no international business, oligarch or internationally minded politician would ever think to get off that train. However, when they get kicked off the train or the entire track, that's another matter. At that point, to get to a desired destination, it's in your strategic interest to find another track all together. Many countries have been awake to this fact for a long time, but only now have the economies of scale and financial tools/exposure to do it, especially when they team up with other States that also don't want to put up with the US challenge to their sovereignty. I wouldn't say that this "alternative track" is wishful thinking, I think it's a strategic reality that may have just not been possible 20 years ago when US hegemony was at its soft power peak. So yeah, single BRICS or OPEC currency, that seems like wishful thinking for sure. But an alternative track for BRICS and OPEC trains to run on when the US blocks the dollar track with sanctions? That's becoming a very lucrative, strategically viable reality. I would even wager that it's a self fulfilling prophecy. The more the US throws it's weight around, the more its influence will decline and the more traffic there will be on the alternative track. The big coup is that there is an viable alternative track at all. That's what the US/EU should be worried about.
I haven't been able to find it again, but not that long ago on YouTube I stumbled across a lecture by a historian talking about Yugoslavia. He said people were always saying Yugoslavia was going to collapse, or all hell was going to break out in Yugoslavia. They said this for years, and it kept never happening, and people started saying (in effect), "You've been saying all hell was going to break out for years, give it up." Yes, it's VERY hard to figure out what's going on anywhere. We all know what happened in Japan in WW2. Many people truly believed Japan was going to win the war. They weren't even capable of internalizing the devastation around them, literally everywhere. This is remarkable. So you may be right about the USA; but also you may be wrong. We should be prepared for either. (whatever "prepared" means)
This is sort of like the USSR isn't it? Only people in retrospect seem to be confident of it's fall, but at the time even people that should have been most prescient didn't see it. None of which undermines Niccolo's arguments. There is a lot of people that want it to happen, more than actually understanding how it can happen.
> Among those who dissent from US foreign policy actions, it has become an article of faith among many of them that the USA is losing the war in Ukraine. The fact of the matter is that the US proxy flag, Ukraine’s, continues to fly east of Kharkov. The fact of the matter is that targets within Russia are still being hit by Ukrainian forces, assisted by some NATO states. Many of these types assured us that the UAF ran out of fuel last year, and could never again conduct an offensive like the (failing) one being conducted now. Many of these types assured us that the UAF was at the breaking point in October of last year. Many of these types are adamant that an overwhelming Russian victory is approaching, one that will drive a stake through the heart of NATO
Basically since the war started, my opinion on it has been the same. I believe it's still valid. Something approximately:
"Literally all sources of information are suspect, as every side is very consciously and deliberately running propaganda on their own people as well as others. The only thing we can say for certainty is that neither Ukraine nor Russia are decisively winning this action, and the longer it drags on, the more certain we can be that neither of them will win _decisively_.
Literally any other position, regardless of whether it is actually true or not, cannot be justified by the available information, because none of the available information is trustworthy
Oh 100% I agree, and I find your more detailed analyses fascinating
It's just that one of my Big Ideas, hedgehog-style, is that the epistemic environment is thoroughly poisoned and most information sources are fundamentally untrustworthy.
I see people arguing russia is winning, or ukraine is winning, and they're all going off of their own data sources. But their data sources are not reliable, and other (unreliable) sources contradict them.
The only thing to say for certain is the facts on the ground, and the facts on the ground are the boots on the ground. There are Russian soldiers in Ukraine. They haven't yet gone home. That means they haven't yet won, and also that they haven't yet lost. Everything else is commentary.
You are likely to be reincarnated and die again many times over before anything like that gets published.
We are all still waiting for the archives to open up on the secret diplomacy of the 1930s. A few years ago Putin offered to open up Russia's archives on condition of reciprocity on the issue from the West. So far no takers.
I read a lot of diplomatic history as a teenager (including a bit on WW1) and concluded that international relations types were not intellectualy serious. It is a judgement that I have never felt obliged to revise.
What is amazing is how the standard of intellect and depth of culture amongst diplomats has fallen over the generations. Once told an ex-diplomat of my aquaintance that Bismarck's stable-boy knew more about international relations than his ex-colleagues. He agreed.
"Among those who dissent from US foreign policy actions, it has become an article of faith among many of them that the USA is losing the war in Ukraine...." This is so interesting to read because among my peer group I'm the only one that thinks Ukraine is not doing well. It's easy to point to the constant reports of Russia being out of ammunition, relying on shovels, sanctions destroying what tiny economy they have, etc. Given the constant info insisting that Russia is on the brink I don't often consider it from the other side and that there is a version of this wishful thinking on that side as well.
Until proven otherwise I think John Mearsheimer still probably has his finger on the pulse better than anyone. He predicts Russian will have an ugly victory. Meaning they will win overall, but not in a way that will have wanted to and not in a way that they will ultimately be satisfied with (for many such reasons).
Patience and caution are the greatest of force multipliers. Putin and his generals truly understand what they are doing. For a country with a demographic crisis this approach works best. Must be good for morale amongst the militarily-literate, of which there would be an abundance in Russia.
The USA (a global commons thanks to the open border) takes a very different approach. NATO's proxy army (the Ukrainians) are paying for this. So far no public questioning of NATO's crap logistics.
I’m reasonably confident the Ukrainian government gets paid in dollars by headcount of soldiers, this gets washed back to DC, this will continue for some time. The victory is money laundering. In Iraq and Afghanistan we had won all by 2003 but $$$$ needed to keep flowing so the inanity of democracy was set as the new mission. We the military very reluctantly have come to face the truth; but now we know.
It would make sense not to rock the boat at this point - for example it would be ridiculous for Putin to force SA's hand in making a 'declaration' regarding arrest/no arrest- so they agree to avoid the issue.
As, you note, all these countries are experiencing significant problems. It would make sense to approach this issue crab wise and in a deniable manner for the present, with an eye to the medium or longer term.
Living under the threat of financial sanctions is not something you'd just accept, if and when you accumulate the power not to.
It might be slow to happen, it might be blocked but the will to attempt is there. There's just too many advantages.
You pose an interesting challenge to my own ideas on this theme, and it's no doubt good for me to ask that question a lot: am I engaged in wishful thinking? I think I have a pretty good read on how badly America is doing on all the fundamentals -- today's America has a fraction of the strength and resilience boasted by Operation Desert Storm era America -- but I wonder if I have failed to appreciate how badly America's competitors are doing. Brazil cannot project much force anywhere that matters, and as you pointed out, South Africa cannot even keep the lights on. Would America do better against a Russian-backed Mexico than Russia is doing against an American-backed Ukraine? Probably. China's the real wild card here, and they've probably been spending the past couple of decades plotting and preparing. I heard the story today about their bioweapons lab that was discovered (by pure happenstance) in California. I don't think we'll know what they have or are capable of until the actually make their move. Our proxy engagement with Russia is the best thing ever for them; they get to just sit back and watch their competitors bleed each other dry. For America, the additional issue will be its own thoroughly rotted social fabric: fine if there is no major stress on the system, but it will lack resilience in the face of a big black swan event. The next couple of Presidential election cycles will also be potential triggering events. I guess we shall see whose take is correct, though it's entirely possible (especially if it involves a black swan event) that what happens will be unforseen and unforseeable by all! Anyway, great essay! (And I feel your pain with your first teenage crush -- I got friendzoned by mine too!)
The relevant point of comparison isn't so much to what America used to be, but to America's opponents. America is much weaker than it was, but its opponents have a long way to go.
As to the rotten social fabric, yes, absolutely ... but again, in comparison to what? China, Russia, Brazil, and especially. South Africa all have deep structural problems of their own, eg dangerously low fertility (Russia, China), crime (SA, Brazil), poverty (all but China).
The real blackpill is who gets to take advantage of the weakness of the status quo powers (the USA, China and Russia) and the endless interstate competition. Most likely the Indians and Africans in that they get a chance for increased concessions in trade etc and opportunities for reverse colonisation.
Our own politicians ("our") have been saying that we're only at the beginning of the mass migration era. What we think is already a flood is a mere trickle compared to what they intend to unleash.
I now refer to them simply as our masters. The utterly fatuous economic bubble that is Australia (just like Canada) would be unsustainable without Ponzi scheme immigration.
Thinking of politics in national terms is either PR for mass consumption or naivete of the first order. All serious politics now is global and aims to entrench a fully integrated economic system with nation-states as flags-of-convenience only.
The best thinking on this that I am aware of is the late Panagiotis Kondylis, an unfairly neglected but extremely distinguished scholar of Hegel. The English translation available in PDF at the link below is packed with insight. Highly recommended.
I was at a conference in Brussels this past winter where the panel agreed that America is showing signs of decay, but that everyone else is still so far behind it.
I remember hearing an urban legend (multiple times from different people) in the 90s (when I was in high school) about a Kenyan-American high school cross-country runner who was so fast he would have a pack of cigarettes hidden along the route and would stop during the race to smoke before continuing and would still easily win the race. I thought this tall tale was funny and would have credited it to Mark Twain if he had still been alive. But I'm reminded of that story when I think of America's present standing compared to other countries. America today seems to be analogous to the mythical Kenyan marathoner. I look at everything America's leaders have done and are doing to undermine their own citizenry, the economy, the military, etc., yet somehow we are still winning the race. How is this even possible? Obviously it is possible, because it is happening, but it really makes me wonder, what the hell is wrong with Humanity that this is how bad our leaders are?
Personally, I don’t subscribe to you as a protest against the USA nor do I think your writings about America as a dangerous global hegemon are your best work, but you are an interesting and entertaining read- please keep it up!
[comment: these are reflexives following on from 'we run']
you would not be subscribed to this Substack --> you would not be subscribed to this Substack, unless you are peeping over the fence from the other side!
One on --> On one
The more important is: --> But more important than that question is this one:
expedient --> convenience
OR
expedient --> expeditiousness
[expediency doesnt mean what it needs to mean here]
US Dollar. The US Dollar
[Dollar can be just dollar, no need to capitalise it. Capitalised in a column or title listing, not in normal prose]
It's incredibly necessary to ask these questions, and not just on American military and economic power. It's similar to the way that gold bugs are constantly predicting the imminent failure of the fiat money system. Their critique of the Federal Reserve, fractional reserve banking, etc is on point ... and yet so far, the system has proved incredibly resilient. When large numbers of powerful people stand to profit from the continuation of a system, it doesn't matter how irrational that system is. They can keep it going for a very long time.
The money system has already failed in key respects (above all in maintaining the currency as a store of value) it is just that we no longer call it failure.
Central banks are hoovering up gold. Have been for a while. A couple of years back the UK had a once in a generation monthly trade surplus from a single transaction involving gold stored in London. Something very big is on its way.
Plenty of other central banks are buying gold too. The Fed would set off a panic if they started buying gold themselves. Being super-cynical, I would not be surprised if the gold bullion depositories going up across the USA are a proxy for the Fed. In an emergency the Fed could step in and apply some regulation allowing them to seize or forcibly acquire the private holdings. In the old days when the gold standard was in force there were a great many regulations about who could trade gold and how. They would most probably still be on the books.
Try holding it at home. One very wealthy family in my city have their own subteranean vault but that is well beyond my means.
In Australia residents can buy gold and silver and have it stored for free if they choose (as part of the Perth Mint's unallocated pool). In the event of confiscation the gov't would be obliged by law to offer compensation at global market prices at the time of seizure. Better than risking a visit from Taffy (to use the old English expression for being robbed, now it is probably a criminal offence to use it).
Thought provoking as ever and kudos for highlighting the critical distinction between reserve asset and reserve transactional currency. For me, the Brics / SCO dimension is a bit of a distraction - the main players are Russia and China. If they get a system up and running, then the other energy (gulf) producers and global south consumers will follow IMHO.
You are correct to point out the need for demonstrable progress regarding dedollarisation, rather than just talk. The replacement in the area of reserves has been clear for a while - this link regarding transactions may be instructive...... https://archive.vn/l8hOl
Going to comment on this from an "I" , i.e. India perspective. There is basically no cost for India to join this BRICS grouping. On the contrary, countries like India, Brazil often challenge China via this forum on various issues. As far as the common currency goes, the idea was DoA'd swiftly, at least in India.
I suspect that this dedollarization is yet another canard that the Western media uses to scare its own populace. Like you correctly lay out in the piece, it is nothing more than wishful thinking at the moment.
India's role in BRICS and SCO is more akin to what Sir Humphrey thinks Britain's role in EU is (sorry, was) . ( https://youtu.be/ZVYqB0uTKlE?t=115 ) I would highly recommend the book "The India Way" by Dr. S. Jaishankar, India's External Affairs Minister. (https://a.co/d/flM46OW) to get a sense of what the emerging multi-polarity means from an Indian PoV.
Hit the like button at the top of the page to like this essay. Use the share and re-stack buttons to share this across social media. Leave a comment if the mood strikes you to do so.
I tried to make this essay not too long.
great stuff. the BRICS concept is a triumph of marketing that somehow became reality. (One the USA’s greatest strengths and weaknesses!) Thanks for pointing out the absurdity of it all
The BRICS Bank is complying with the sanctions regime against Russia. That says it all.
But I don't think that's the full picture. I think we can all admit that the real conversation isn't around a common/supranational alternative currency at this point. It's about normalizing the use of other, strong/stable currencies (attached to significant markets) to conduct strategic trade that get States around western sanctions, including with alternatives to SWIFT/IBAN. The war in Ukraine has showed us that this is not only possible, but, desirable. In other words, internationally, the US remains dominant both economically and politically. Therefore, no international business, oligarch or internationally minded politician would ever think to get off that train. However, when they get kicked off the train or the entire track, that's another matter. At that point, to get to a desired destination, it's in your strategic interest to find another track all together. Many countries have been awake to this fact for a long time, but only now have the economies of scale and financial tools/exposure to do it, especially when they team up with other States that also don't want to put up with the US challenge to their sovereignty. I wouldn't say that this "alternative track" is wishful thinking, I think it's a strategic reality that may have just not been possible 20 years ago when US hegemony was at its soft power peak. So yeah, single BRICS or OPEC currency, that seems like wishful thinking for sure. But an alternative track for BRICS and OPEC trains to run on when the US blocks the dollar track with sanctions? That's becoming a very lucrative, strategically viable reality. I would even wager that it's a self fulfilling prophecy. The more the US throws it's weight around, the more its influence will decline and the more traffic there will be on the alternative track. The big coup is that there is an viable alternative track at all. That's what the US/EU should be worried about.
Case and point, "Russian Crude Oil Now Flowing To China Via Arctic Ocean": https://www.highnorthnews.com/en/russian-crude-oil-now-flowing-china-arctic-ocean
All paid for in Yuan and all along a route the US can't properly police even if it wanted to...the article also mentions India doing the same.
I haven't been able to find it again, but not that long ago on YouTube I stumbled across a lecture by a historian talking about Yugoslavia. He said people were always saying Yugoslavia was going to collapse, or all hell was going to break out in Yugoslavia. They said this for years, and it kept never happening, and people started saying (in effect), "You've been saying all hell was going to break out for years, give it up." Yes, it's VERY hard to figure out what's going on anywhere. We all know what happened in Japan in WW2. Many people truly believed Japan was going to win the war. They weren't even capable of internalizing the devastation around them, literally everywhere. This is remarkable. So you may be right about the USA; but also you may be wrong. We should be prepared for either. (whatever "prepared" means)
Definitely.
This is sort of like the USSR isn't it? Only people in retrospect seem to be confident of it's fall, but at the time even people that should have been most prescient didn't see it. None of which undermines Niccolo's arguments. There is a lot of people that want it to happen, more than actually understanding how it can happen.
I forgot to mention that Putin can't go to South Africa out of fear of arrest due to ICC warrant issued against him. South Africa is part of BRICS.
The Naked Emperor discussed this on a recent substack ( https://nakedemperor.substack.com/p/south-africas-anc-secretary-general ), including link to BBC interview with South Africa’s ANC Secretary General, Fikile Mbalula.
Rome wasn't built in a day! And it took centuries for the Roman Empire to completely collapse.
It took only 20 years for the British Empire, though. Once you run out of money, the dominoes start falling quickly.
Ha very true! Plus the Romans have a few centuries on us!
We’re much closer to Carthage
Total aside, but
> Among those who dissent from US foreign policy actions, it has become an article of faith among many of them that the USA is losing the war in Ukraine. The fact of the matter is that the US proxy flag, Ukraine’s, continues to fly east of Kharkov. The fact of the matter is that targets within Russia are still being hit by Ukrainian forces, assisted by some NATO states. Many of these types assured us that the UAF ran out of fuel last year, and could never again conduct an offensive like the (failing) one being conducted now. Many of these types assured us that the UAF was at the breaking point in October of last year. Many of these types are adamant that an overwhelming Russian victory is approaching, one that will drive a stake through the heart of NATO
Basically since the war started, my opinion on it has been the same. I believe it's still valid. Something approximately:
"Literally all sources of information are suspect, as every side is very consciously and deliberately running propaganda on their own people as well as others. The only thing we can say for certainty is that neither Ukraine nor Russia are decisively winning this action, and the longer it drags on, the more certain we can be that neither of them will win _decisively_.
Literally any other position, regardless of whether it is actually true or not, cannot be justified by the available information, because none of the available information is trustworthy
Fair, but it makes for boring discussion and debate ;)
Oh 100% I agree, and I find your more detailed analyses fascinating
It's just that one of my Big Ideas, hedgehog-style, is that the epistemic environment is thoroughly poisoned and most information sources are fundamentally untrustworthy.
I see people arguing russia is winning, or ukraine is winning, and they're all going off of their own data sources. But their data sources are not reliable, and other (unreliable) sources contradict them.
The only thing to say for certain is the facts on the ground, and the facts on the ground are the boots on the ground. There are Russian soldiers in Ukraine. They haven't yet gone home. That means they haven't yet won, and also that they haven't yet lost. Everything else is commentary.
I may die an old man without getting accurate history on Ukraine Russian war.
You are likely to be reincarnated and die again many times over before anything like that gets published.
We are all still waiting for the archives to open up on the secret diplomacy of the 1930s. A few years ago Putin offered to open up Russia's archives on condition of reciprocity on the issue from the West. So far no takers.
Have you looked at the Diplomacy leading to WW1?
WW1: Color Books (Diplomatic Books).
WW3: Coloring Books.
Child sociopath bloodthirsty women in pantsuits.
I read a lot of diplomatic history as a teenager (including a bit on WW1) and concluded that international relations types were not intellectualy serious. It is a judgement that I have never felt obliged to revise.
What is amazing is how the standard of intellect and depth of culture amongst diplomats has fallen over the generations. Once told an ex-diplomat of my aquaintance that Bismarck's stable-boy knew more about international relations than his ex-colleagues. He agreed.
And, in recent context, a long bitter conflict with no real 'winner' seems to be the trend. Vietnam, Afghanistan (both USSR and US), and now Ukraine.
"Among those who dissent from US foreign policy actions, it has become an article of faith among many of them that the USA is losing the war in Ukraine...." This is so interesting to read because among my peer group I'm the only one that thinks Ukraine is not doing well. It's easy to point to the constant reports of Russia being out of ammunition, relying on shovels, sanctions destroying what tiny economy they have, etc. Given the constant info insisting that Russia is on the brink I don't often consider it from the other side and that there is a version of this wishful thinking on that side as well.
Until proven otherwise I think John Mearsheimer still probably has his finger on the pulse better than anyone. He predicts Russian will have an ugly victory. Meaning they will win overall, but not in a way that will have wanted to and not in a way that they will ultimately be satisfied with (for many such reasons).
The Russians are short of nothing in men or material and are playing their slow game.
Patience and caution are the greatest of force multipliers. Putin and his generals truly understand what they are doing. For a country with a demographic crisis this approach works best. Must be good for morale amongst the militarily-literate, of which there would be an abundance in Russia.
The USA (a global commons thanks to the open border) takes a very different approach. NATO's proxy army (the Ukrainians) are paying for this. So far no public questioning of NATO's crap logistics.
I’m reasonably confident the Ukrainian government gets paid in dollars by headcount of soldiers, this gets washed back to DC, this will continue for some time. The victory is money laundering. In Iraq and Afghanistan we had won all by 2003 but $$$$ needed to keep flowing so the inanity of democracy was set as the new mission. We the military very reluctantly have come to face the truth; but now we know.
Thanks for the Andrew Korybko link. Really interesting article.
Here's a follow-up from him - https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2023/07/explaining-chinas-indias-reported-differences-over-expanding-brics.html
It would make sense not to rock the boat at this point - for example it would be ridiculous for Putin to force SA's hand in making a 'declaration' regarding arrest/no arrest- so they agree to avoid the issue.
As, you note, all these countries are experiencing significant problems. It would make sense to approach this issue crab wise and in a deniable manner for the present, with an eye to the medium or longer term.
Living under the threat of financial sanctions is not something you'd just accept, if and when you accumulate the power not to.
It might be slow to happen, it might be blocked but the will to attempt is there. There's just too many advantages.
I agree. I just want to underline the point that we cannot make assumptions based on things that have yet to happen.
You pose an interesting challenge to my own ideas on this theme, and it's no doubt good for me to ask that question a lot: am I engaged in wishful thinking? I think I have a pretty good read on how badly America is doing on all the fundamentals -- today's America has a fraction of the strength and resilience boasted by Operation Desert Storm era America -- but I wonder if I have failed to appreciate how badly America's competitors are doing. Brazil cannot project much force anywhere that matters, and as you pointed out, South Africa cannot even keep the lights on. Would America do better against a Russian-backed Mexico than Russia is doing against an American-backed Ukraine? Probably. China's the real wild card here, and they've probably been spending the past couple of decades plotting and preparing. I heard the story today about their bioweapons lab that was discovered (by pure happenstance) in California. I don't think we'll know what they have or are capable of until the actually make their move. Our proxy engagement with Russia is the best thing ever for them; they get to just sit back and watch their competitors bleed each other dry. For America, the additional issue will be its own thoroughly rotted social fabric: fine if there is no major stress on the system, but it will lack resilience in the face of a big black swan event. The next couple of Presidential election cycles will also be potential triggering events. I guess we shall see whose take is correct, though it's entirely possible (especially if it involves a black swan event) that what happens will be unforseen and unforseeable by all! Anyway, great essay! (And I feel your pain with your first teenage crush -- I got friendzoned by mine too!)
The relevant point of comparison isn't so much to what America used to be, but to America's opponents. America is much weaker than it was, but its opponents have a long way to go.
As to the rotten social fabric, yes, absolutely ... but again, in comparison to what? China, Russia, Brazil, and especially. South Africa all have deep structural problems of their own, eg dangerously low fertility (Russia, China), crime (SA, Brazil), poverty (all but China).
Yeah, maybe this race to the bottom will end in a tie! 🙂
That's actually a really depressing thought: the winner of WWIII is whoever fails slowest.
The real blackpill is who gets to take advantage of the weakness of the status quo powers (the USA, China and Russia) and the endless interstate competition. Most likely the Indians and Africans in that they get a chance for increased concessions in trade etc and opportunities for reverse colonisation.
Our own politicians ("our") have been saying that we're only at the beginning of the mass migration era. What we think is already a flood is a mere trickle compared to what they intend to unleash.
I now refer to them simply as our masters. The utterly fatuous economic bubble that is Australia (just like Canada) would be unsustainable without Ponzi scheme immigration.
Thinking of politics in national terms is either PR for mass consumption or naivete of the first order. All serious politics now is global and aims to entrench a fully integrated economic system with nation-states as flags-of-convenience only.
The best thinking on this that I am aware of is the late Panagiotis Kondylis, an unfairly neglected but extremely distinguished scholar of Hegel. The English translation available in PDF at the link below is packed with insight. Highly recommended.
https://www.panagiotiskondylis.com/planetary-politics-after-the-cold-war.php
Oh Lord ye win the thread with the race to the bottom tie lol
I was at a conference in Brussels this past winter where the panel agreed that America is showing signs of decay, but that everyone else is still so far behind it.
I remember hearing an urban legend (multiple times from different people) in the 90s (when I was in high school) about a Kenyan-American high school cross-country runner who was so fast he would have a pack of cigarettes hidden along the route and would stop during the race to smoke before continuing and would still easily win the race. I thought this tall tale was funny and would have credited it to Mark Twain if he had still been alive. But I'm reminded of that story when I think of America's present standing compared to other countries. America today seems to be analogous to the mythical Kenyan marathoner. I look at everything America's leaders have done and are doing to undermine their own citizenry, the economy, the military, etc., yet somehow we are still winning the race. How is this even possible? Obviously it is possible, because it is happening, but it really makes me wonder, what the hell is wrong with Humanity that this is how bad our leaders are?
Personally, I don’t subscribe to you as a protest against the USA nor do I think your writings about America as a dangerous global hegemon are your best work, but you are an interesting and entertaining read- please keep it up!
removing us --> removing ourselves
relocating us --> relocating ourselves
[comment: these are reflexives following on from 'we run']
you would not be subscribed to this Substack --> you would not be subscribed to this Substack, unless you are peeping over the fence from the other side!
One on --> On one
The more important is: --> But more important than that question is this one:
expedient --> convenience
OR
expedient --> expeditiousness
[expediency doesnt mean what it needs to mean here]
US Dollar. The US Dollar
[Dollar can be just dollar, no need to capitalise it. Capitalised in a column or title listing, not in normal prose]
It's incredibly necessary to ask these questions, and not just on American military and economic power. It's similar to the way that gold bugs are constantly predicting the imminent failure of the fiat money system. Their critique of the Federal Reserve, fractional reserve banking, etc is on point ... and yet so far, the system has proved incredibly resilient. When large numbers of powerful people stand to profit from the continuation of a system, it doesn't matter how irrational that system is. They can keep it going for a very long time.
The money system has already failed in key respects (above all in maintaining the currency as a store of value) it is just that we no longer call it failure.
Central banks are hoovering up gold. Have been for a while. A couple of years back the UK had a once in a generation monthly trade surplus from a single transaction involving gold stored in London. Something very big is on its way.
From what I've seen, the Fed is not doing this. China and Russia are, and in a big way.
Plenty of other central banks are buying gold too. The Fed would set off a panic if they started buying gold themselves. Being super-cynical, I would not be surprised if the gold bullion depositories going up across the USA are a proxy for the Fed. In an emergency the Fed could step in and apply some regulation allowing them to seize or forcibly acquire the private holdings. In the old days when the gold standard was in force there were a great many regulations about who could trade gold and how. They would most probably still be on the books.
There's also the precedent of FDR's gold grab. Goldbugs gonna be pissed if their boards are appropriated the moment the state decides it wants to.
The idiocy of buying gold and letting someone else hold it...
🤣 LMAO
Corzine ruined some chump that way...
Try holding it at home. One very wealthy family in my city have their own subteranean vault but that is well beyond my means.
In Australia residents can buy gold and silver and have it stored for free if they choose (as part of the Perth Mint's unallocated pool). In the event of confiscation the gov't would be obliged by law to offer compensation at global market prices at the time of seizure. Better than risking a visit from Taffy (to use the old English expression for being robbed, now it is probably a criminal offence to use it).
Thought provoking as ever and kudos for highlighting the critical distinction between reserve asset and reserve transactional currency. For me, the Brics / SCO dimension is a bit of a distraction - the main players are Russia and China. If they get a system up and running, then the other energy (gulf) producers and global south consumers will follow IMHO.
You are correct to point out the need for demonstrable progress regarding dedollarisation, rather than just talk. The replacement in the area of reserves has been clear for a while - this link regarding transactions may be instructive...... https://archive.vn/l8hOl
Going to comment on this from an "I" , i.e. India perspective. There is basically no cost for India to join this BRICS grouping. On the contrary, countries like India, Brazil often challenge China via this forum on various issues. As far as the common currency goes, the idea was DoA'd swiftly, at least in India.
I suspect that this dedollarization is yet another canard that the Western media uses to scare its own populace. Like you correctly lay out in the piece, it is nothing more than wishful thinking at the moment.
India's role in BRICS and SCO is more akin to what Sir Humphrey thinks Britain's role in EU is (sorry, was) . ( https://youtu.be/ZVYqB0uTKlE?t=115 ) I would highly recommend the book "The India Way" by Dr. S. Jaishankar, India's External Affairs Minister. (https://a.co/d/flM46OW) to get a sense of what the emerging multi-polarity means from an Indian PoV.
We need Sir Humphrey now more than ever
“the factories, the foundries, the shipyards, the iron and coal mines–all the things we haven’t got.”
In the above context, wouldn’t-
US= South
China=North
USA > Russia, but China?
We do have those things we just got rid of much of them and are rebuilding. Most importantly we kept the Chips and Taiwan isn’t yet china.