You can ignore authors, whether they are producing too much noise or being needlessly provocative, by clicking the yellow unhappy when reading their post.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 4
I think it's worth an attempt to keep the BRK board about BRK and some OT topics concerning finance but try to actively avoid politics, because it's something that really punches people's buttons these days.
@tedthedog
Discussion of politics, including the war in Ukraine, are probably too much of a 'hot button' to discuss here and hope to retain the collegiality of this board.
@Lear
Maybe, but the increasing sympathy for, or neutrality with respect to, Russian aggression in certain U.S. circles is part of why I'm slowly doing what Jim has done quickly.
I'm Canadian, and the newfound U.S. stance on Russia-Ukraine/EU relations puts an important gloss on U.S. threats to treat the U.S.-Canada border as less than sacrosanct. Violating Canadian / non-U.S. citizens' rights in property or contract is hardly a massive reach when Trump can't go a day without describing Canada as the 51st state. And these aren't isolated incidents either.
I sympathize, and as an American I apologize. IMO, what's going on the U.S. is insanity.
Did people voting for Trump vote for him to bring prices down (that's impossible, he could bring inflation i.e. the rise in price down), or for him to invade Canada and take Greenland and Panama by force?
I don't recall e.g. invasion of our closest ally as a discussion topic or a talking point, pre-election.
Trump voters might have voted to reduce the federal bureaucracy. But did any but the most hardcore want it suddenly destroyed with a chain saw by the richest man in the world? And the attendant consequences, including massive conflicts of interest of this richest man? I don't recall Musk and chainsaw as a serious discussion topic or a talking point pre-election. Musk was certainly in view, and this raised questions about the advisability of the world's richest man donating $250M (or whatever it was) to elect the political candidate of his choice. After which he started hanging about in the White House and other federal offices. Vote Trump, get Musk?
I'm honestly not being snarky, I just don't understand these points.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Maybe, but the increasing sympathy for, or neutrality with respect to, Russian aggression in certain U.S. circles is part of why I'm slowly doing what Jim has done quickly.
There’s no “respect for Russia”. That’s a talking point made up by democrats.
There’s a simple reality on the ground in the Ukraine, and that reality is this:
Zelensky lacks the dudes, the guns and the money to evict Putin from his country.
The left is content is feed every last Ukrainian into the meat grinder. In light of not enough dudes/guns/money, what purpose does that serve?
An obvious rejoinder is “they’re fighting for their homes”. Yes they are. Which is why one has to take the long view: get a peace agreement now. Get time to rebuild the infrastructure and re-arm. Then see about Round 2 if the D/G/M calculus is different.
No. of Recommendations: 5
In light of not enough dudes/guns/money, what purpose does that serve?
The war is also extracting a heavy toll from Russia - so if Russia is facing down the prospect of a lengthy fight to come, as Ukraine is supplied with enough guns and money to last them quite a while longer, then Russia might accept a negotiated outcome that is more favorable to the West than if Ukraine is simply forced to surrender now.
No. of Recommendations: 1
The war is also extracting a heavy toll from Russia - so if Russia is facing down the prospect of a lengthy fight to come, as Ukraine is supplied with enough guns and money to last them quite a while longer, then Russia might accept a negotiated outcome that is more favorable to the West than if Ukraine is simply forced to surrender now.
I see. So we'd all like Zelensky to play the role of Pyrrhus of Epirus and go forth.
Why do you equate seeking peace with 'surrender'?
No. of Recommendations: 4
I'm replying to a different post on the BRK board (by RayVT)
RayVT (in italics)
I find it amusing that Europe is considering ignoring "rule of law" with respect to the $300 billion of frozen Russia assets. Lending money using Russia's assets as collateral. (Great, I'll borrow money from the bank and put your house up as collateral.) Seizing the interest earned on the $300B. (The earnings of an asset belong to the owner of that asset.)
RayVT
-The latest proposal is that Ukraine assign their war reparations claims ...
This would be the first time I have ever heard of the loser of a war making the winner pay reparations.
But, hey, this isn't the first wild claim from Ukraine.
-This is generally legal (if one is mindful of a few technicalities) and has long precedent, and would accomplish about the same thing as outright confiscation.
Which winners of a war in history had their assets forcibly taken from them and given to the loser? Usually it's the other way around.
Did Rome pay reparations to Carthage?
--------------------------------------------------
You said that "the earnings of an asset belong to the owner of that asset"
But your context is lacking:
Russia rolled tanks into a sovereign country which was a European ally, Putin got surprised that they didn't win in a few days, and he got sucked into such a meat grinder that he needed North Korean troop reinforcements.
Ukraine has been supported by the U.S. and by its European allies (not to get side-tracked, but Trump's claims about relative amounts of aid from Europe and from the U.S. are fact-checked lies). As an aside, Russia is a long-term foe of U.S. ideals and interests, it's currently run by a thug who has looted the country along with his oligarch buddies of roughly a trillion dollars, and this lot brutally invaded a neighboring democratic country and European ally.
About 300 billion dollars of Russian central bank reserves is held outside the country in the form of currency as well as soverign bonds of China, France, Germany and the UK. Given that Russia has broken international law, and has obviously caused great damage to Ukraine infrastructure (as well of course as great loss of life), my opinion is that imposing requirements that it pays for some of the damage it caused as a condition of ending the war is reasonable. What's been discussed is that interest on the sovereign debt not go to Russia but instead go to arm and/or repair Ukraine, and Russia would get its principal back when the war ends. As for the currency, which does not have contractual obligations as debt does, my personal opinion is to confiscate it and use it to repair Ukraine's injuries, but I'm not an expert on currency law. Perhaps that's somewhat "extra-judicious', but heck so is Putin, so fair play.
Which winners of a war in history had their assets forcibly taken from them and given to the loser? Usually it's the other way around.
Did Rome pay reparations to Carthage?
As for Russia "winning" -- well it didn't.
Also, the "I win, you lose, and everything is zero sum" idea, that seems to me to be central to Trump's policies, is just factually wrong.
Consider WWII: "we", i.e. the U.S. and allies, won.
The U.S. then instituted the Marshall plan, which helped rebuild Italy, Great Britain, and France ... and Germany. Germany lost. General MacArthur also coordinated economic aid to Japan, as well as implementing needed institutional reforms. Japan lost.
By helping the loser, the winner i.e. the U.S., ultimately benefited.
It's not zero sum.
A similar notion holds in business (and diplomacy).
It's usually a bad policy to try screw every last dime from your partner in a business deal, if only because this is very sort-sighted i.e. you'd ultimately get even more just by taking a longer view.
If all parties walk away from a deal thinking they got something they wanted, even if the deal was a tooth and nail negotiation, then it's more likely in future that the parties would do something together that again benefits them both.
But if one party feels screwed, while the other smirks, there will be no other future benefits accruing to either of them.
Furthermore, other parties will view a zero-sum transaction policy of the winner in this isolated instance, and decide they either don't with to deal with that party, or will only do so on the harshest terms.
Zero sum is a losing policy.
No. of Recommendations: 2
I'm replying to a different post on the BRK board (by RayVT)
Thank you for replying to RayVT. I was going to reply but you did a much better job than I would have done.
