The direct reason for this is the U.S. just levied sanctions on those "shadow fleet" oil tankers.
Taiwan Straights Tension
- Thread starter WolfBear
- Start date
The direct reason for this is the U.S. just levied sanctions on those "shadow fleet" oil tankers.
I'm not sure Russia has that capacity at this point.
Sure, they can and probably will try.
However, there are 2 problems with that:
a) Building the pipeline infrastructure to move oil and gas from the Siberian fields to China is going to be a slow, technically hellishly tough and expensive endeavor, due to the geographic conditions. Perhaps with the Chinese industrial complex helping they can pull it off. Eventually. Somehow. But it won't be fast and it won't be cheap, that much is certain.
Making the ones for Europe took decades, and that includes a good chunk of it going through less harsh lands with proper infrastructure.
b) And once they do, now they have to deal with the Chinese, who certainly didn't pay for it from their own pocket, and they know Russia has to get the investment repaid, somehow, while Europe won't do it for them.
Last edited:
Hmm...sounds like China is showing imminent intent...
sigh Fucking West Taiwan.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
They already missed their window.
Trump's in the White House now, not Biden, and if they try a move while he's there, they're going to learn *real* fast how much their Navy really is or is not worth.
Agree.Besides,they really belive that they have time,and could wait till USA would fall about 2040 - which should happened becous of USA debt.
Since they need to conqer Taiwan till 2049,there is no need to rush things.
True,Trump have chance to unfuck american economy...but he mus kill Fed tos do so,starting with coming back to silver dollar.JFK was murdered becouse he tried that.
We would see if Trump manage to do that.But,if he do that,then China,not USA,could collapse becouse of economy.
Taiwan to construct six fast mine laying boats.
Each of the 376 ton vessels will be able to deploy up to 64 domestically produced Wan Hsiang naval mines from four mine laying tracks.
thedefensepost.com
Each of the 376 ton vessels will be able to deploy up to 64 domestically produced Wan Hsiang naval mines from four mine laying tracks.
Loading…
www.taiwannews.com.tw
Taiwan Seeks Supplier for Six More Mine-Laying Vessels
Taiwan is seeking a contractor to build six more Min Jiang-class mine-laying vessels starting this year until 2027.
thedefensepost.com
AHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA no. Literally no country in the world has used a bullion standard currency since 1935, and literally the only nations that used it past 1900 were French Indochina (until 1930) and China (until 1935).
Even if you went back to bullion, gold and silver are simply no longer rare enough to be used as a sensible monetary standard. You'd have to go with platinum to make it even remotely plausible.
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
I disagree with this since it's a simple matter of ratios. Just adjust the relative value till you get what you want.
...wait, not rare enough? I think I don't understand what you're getting at.
Bullion standards rely on backing money with the innate value and work required to mine a precious metal. Gold and silver are no longer precious in much but "tradition and cultural value". They work as niches in the modern system because investing in gold and silver these days is investing in their changes in value relative to fiat money base, not because of their value as precious metals.
You also can't transition to a bullion standard at anything but the current market rate unless you want to cause MASSIVE disruptions of the economy and screwing over everyone currently holding bullion.
Yup. It just can't add up. The total of gold reserves in all the world's banks is about 32k tons. At current prices that's something close to 3 trillion USD. For comparison, that's only a little more than the 2.3 trillion of USD in circulation... *in paper*. Nevermind all the electronic money and nevermind all the other currencies in the world.
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
The first part sounds like you're saying that one should not use a bullion whose price is such that people can effectively arbitrage you by mining it out of the ground. I agree with that, but am skeptical that gold would necessarily have that problem.
That sounds like an argument that gold would need to be more common to work as a standard, not more rare.
But if gold was so much more common, then it would be worth less...
It worked when the economy more or less revolved around grain and so precious metals could be traded against it to a certain value balance. But now there's so many goods and economic sectors with trade values overshadowing all the value of gold or any simple resource really, and by a massive margin at that, so a currency based on those would unavoidably be too scarce to be used for efficiently facilitating the exchanges, nevermind some degree of saving.
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
I understand what you're saying. I'm just trying to remind you that ShadowArxxy said, "Even if you went back to bullion, gold and silver are simply no longer rare enough to be used as a sensible monetary standard," which seems to me to be in contradiction with what you're saying.
But in what sense? Another angle is that unlike in the past, gold and silver now also have meaningful industrial uses, in electronics particularly, so there would be an unwanted feedback between that and monetary use of the resources, so that electronics market can disrupt monetary policy, and monetary policy can disrupt electronics market, even if that effect is completely unwanted.