Russia’s invasion of Ukraine leaves global trade in tatters

[Estro Felino]

Europe is already suffering, especially Ukraine currently.
Scandinavia & others are threatened, & now devoting
more tax dollars in military defense, thereby reducing
resources available for social services.
There's a great risk of further Putinogenic conquest & war.
Minimizing that risk is useful. And the economic price paid
is worldwide, not just Europe. Just hardest on Russia.

The decisions are taken by governments.
Not by commoners.

 

[Stevicus]

You've named some dictatorships, but ignored the
larger volume of trade with non-dictatorships.
And what does "in the name of international trade"
even mean....trade just a cover for what?

Oh come on, you know what I'm talking about. You yourself have brought up the Shah on numerous occasions in threads about Iran. The US economy has thrived on relationships with dictators who are/were friendly to US interests. When I say "in the name of international trade," I'm referring to notions like the "global economy," which (as noted in the OP article) was based on the assumption of a separation of geopolitics and business. It's assumptions like that which have gotten us into trouble in the past - and it's even worse now.

If our trading partners had no dictatorships, you
think this would kill trade? We manage fine with
Canuckistan, Mexico, Europe, etc.

Okay, here's the scenario: On the map below, we can only trade with countries which are green. How would the US economy fare if that were the case?

 

[Revoltingest]

The decisions are taken by governments.
Not by commoners.

So it goes in all matters of state.
Putin never consulted his people or soldiers for
approval of his latest misadventure. But Ukrainian
commoners do appear to be acting individually
rather than under government orders to defend
their country. So they deserve our aid, especially
Javelins.
This is one being fired in "top down" mode, which
attacks a vulnerability of tanks....

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh come on, you know what I'm talking about.

Not yet.
Your post was inscrutably strange.
But I'll continue reading this one.

You yourself have brought up the Shah on numerous occasions in threads about Iran. The US economy has thrived on relationships with dictators who are/were friendly to US interests. When I say "in the name of international trade," I'm referring to notions like the "global economy," which (as noted in the OP article) was based on the assumption of a separation of geopolitics and business. It's assumptions like that which have gotten us into trouble in the past - and it's even worse now.

To say that we've installed & traded with dictators
isn't in dispute. But that wasn't what you posted.
Ref...
"...we've depended on dictators in the name of international trade..."

Okay, here's the scenario: On the map below, we can only trade with countries which are green. How would the US economy fare if that were the case?

View attachment 60654

We'd fare quite well. Our trade with China is
large only because they've offered really cheap
goods. I say our economy would've been even
stronger if we paid higher prices for domestically
made goods.
I inferred from your post that it was necessary to
us that they be dictatorships, & that our goals were
something other than international trade. If trade
isn't the goal, then what is?

 

[F1fan]

Looking at history, it seems easy to believe.
But difficult to accept.

Right. I'm amazed how many parallels there are to Putin's decisions and how they are destined to fail, after destroying a sovereign nation.

I think the priory for NATO is to help Ukraine destroy as much Russian military capability now so they won't risk further actions against other nations. We really need to wait out time until Putin dies. That will be years, unless Putin "slips in the shower".

 

[Revoltingest]

...unless Putin "slips in the shower".

...or has a firearm event in his bunker.

 

[Stevicus]

I inferred from your post that it was necessary to
us that they be dictatorships, & that our goals were
something other than international trade. If trade
isn't the goal, then what is?

The goal, it seems, is to gain profits (and the power to protect their acquired wealth).

Take, for example, Latin America and the so many "banana republics" exploited by US corporations (such as United Fruit). If those governments had been honestly and freely elected, with the US respecting their sovereignty, then they would have wanted a better deal for their people - which would have meant lower profits. Obviously, lower profits are unacceptable to capitalists, so they were able to use their political clout (as well as manipulate those who were paranoid about communism in Latin America) in order that US hegemony could bring about governments friendly to US business interests. They needed them to be dictatorships to keep the local populations in line, in order to earn higher profits. There doesn't appear there was any other way they could have done it and still remain in business.

It was similar in the Middle East, as US oil companies curtailed domestic production after WW2 because they thought they could save money by extracting it from overseas, where unions were weaker (or non-existent) and labor was cheaper. Once OPEC got smart, the US economy took a major hit. We couldn't control them anymore; that's what makes the difference.

It seems we have grown quite dependent upon the globalist system (our current supply chain troubles are evidence of this). This is because our government has been a willing participant and cheerleader, while gambling the well-being of the American nation on the "assumption that rational decision-making will always prevail." That does include the world's dictators and rogue factions, even if some of the world might still be nominally "free."

 

[Revoltingest]

The goal, it seems, is to gain profits (and the power to protect their acquired wealth).

That sounds like international trade to me.

Take, for example, Latin America and the so many "banana republics" exploited by US corporations (such as United Fruit). If those governments had been honestly and freely elected, with the US respecting their sovereignty, then they would have wanted a better deal for their people - which would have meant lower profits. Obviously, lower profits are unacceptable to capitalists, so they were able to use their political clout (as well as manipulate those who were paranoid about communism in Latin America) in order that US hegemony could bring about governments friendly to US business interests. They needed them to be dictatorships to keep the local populations in line, in order to earn higher profits. There doesn't appear there was any other way they could have done it and still remain in business.

It was similar in the Middle East, as US oil companies curtailed domestic production after WW2 because they thought they could save money by extracting it from overseas, where unions were weaker (or non-existent) and labor was cheaper. Once OPEC got smart, the US economy took a major hit. We couldn't control them anymore; that's what makes the difference.

It seems we have grown quite dependent upon the globalist system (our current supply chain troubles are evidence of this). This is because our government has been a willing participant and cheerleader, while gambling the well-being of the American nation on the "assumption that rational decision-making will always prevail." That does include the world's dictators and rogue factions, even if some of the world might still be nominally "free."

You're not backing up the claims made in the
post I originally questioned.
It sounds like a general rant against capitalism.
If that's all it is, you should consider that socialist
countries also loved trading with dictatorships.

 

[Stevicus]

That sounds like international trade to me.

You're not backing up the claims made in the
post I originally questioned.

I thought I had. I cited several examples. Which claims are you referring to?

 

[Revoltingest]

I thought I had. I cited several examples. Which claims are you referring to?

The ones I quoted.
I've nothing new to add.