An export-based economy just means you let someone else consume the excess you produce.
The vast US military is arguably primarily to protect the right to print the world's currency. (The day Iraq started to sell oil in euros the US attacked it for example)
As Blyth knows and talks about the ECB is in dire straits versus the reserve currency dollar. The EU has a difficult road ahead having completely screwed up their energy policy and are now creating food shortages in Holland and elsewhere to add to the global inflation nightmare.
It's hard to tell if the US federal (it's not, it's private banks) reserve (they don't have any) are willfully incompetent or master tactical strategists...
This stupid meme needs to die.
Iraq's switch to the Euro was not some rogue act of defiance. It happened under the UN's Food for Oil-for-Food program and was authorised by the Security Council: https://www.un.org/depts/oip/background/chron.html
If it really was such a significant risk to the dollar hegemony, the US could have simply vetoed it. The switch happened in late 2000 but Iraq wasn't invaded till March 2003.
> US federal (it's not, it's private banks) reserve
Eye-roll.
The FR is a federal board 'overseeing' 12 private chartered regional banks. This contraption was organized in deep secrecy in 1910 at Jekyll Island as I expect you are aware.
etc.
dutch farmers are spraying manure at the bureaucrats buildings
As a Pole, I cannot help but laugh at that. Why would that ever be the case?
Stratfor employs many ex-US-intelligence-agency people who use the same geopolitical analysis methods for a corporate audience (though without classified data) and their views are a close approximation of the thinking of the US's intelligence community; in that sense, they are significant.
They do state it with an air of authority and "high caliber top secret intelligence" but still laughable.
Which means in that sense it will be very likely ridicously wrong?!
To reply (though you were perfectly capable of this thought yourself):
Obviously; but it gives us a frame to understand geopolitical behavior by the US as it happens, and before it happens.
Edward Gibbon described “secret intrigues of the palace” (palace intrigue) as “those trifling but decisive causes which so often influence the fate of empires.” Stratfor is the Pentagon's palace intrigue (several steps removed).
If you've ever read Stratfor you know they expect, and plan for, the disintegration of Russia and China into smaller republics; and you can tell I don't believe in that.
It is merely an indication that the US likely now sees Germany as a second-rate ally, irrelevant to its geopolitical future; and therefore doesn't care about the sanctions' effect on Germany. That is the only reason I brought it up.
Similarly, holding the passport of a country doesn’t automatically make someone a geopolitical expert
I mean no offense at all, I’ve simply observed way too many instances of online discourse beginning with “as a citizen of ____” to establish credibility in areas that don’t really benefit from citizenship.
The Polish GDP per capita is 30-40% lower than the German. Assuming it will ever happen, it will take decades for Poland to replace Germany.
Not gonna lie, you had me in the first half.
Poland has had an anemic demography for years (1.38 child per woman in 2021, the lowest in Eastern Europe after Ukraine and Moldova), a massive brain (and workforce more generally) drain since the fall of the Eastern Block.
Its GDP per capita is even 30% lower than Czech Republic and less than a third of German's GDP.
German's economy is going to face troubles, but Poland isn't even remotely close to taking any kind of economic leadership. And it won't happen until Poland fixes their natality issue (and even then, it would take them another fifty years).
For an export driven economy like Japan, Germany or China - balance of trade could be bad. How big is the German software & banking industry to offset some of this default in the long haul?
Yes, it is a recipe for collapse because imbalanced trade is inherently unsustainable.
Ok so what is correct then? I’m not seeing the reason trade deficits are inherently bad anywhere in your comment.
edit: Germany's exports are 48% of GDP for context. And this trade deficit reflects increased import costs, which will hurt businesses since Germany is poor in raw resources. I.e., this is a problem for both the German government & German businesses, and for their whole economy.
Except Germany is a manufacturing- and export-based economy. Take that away, and you have a recipe for economic collapse.
Read the FT's article, which includes much more statements from politicians and economists. https://www.ft.com/content/6f325773-bf8a-4e28-9fc1-6bc986ee9... Use the Bypass Paywalls Clean extension if you need to.
Or, read what Stratfor (if you have a subscription) has been predicting for a decade now: Germany's slow decline, to be replaced as Europe's power center by Poland.
Germany was already facing a worker shortage and inflation. Now the government is discussing rationing gas allocated to German businesses. Beyond the ideological arguments, it's clear that this is going to be a crisis for Germany, and for all Eurozone economies; and their reactions will determine "how bad it gets". We are looking at a probable recession across Europe.
By the way, I warned months ago that sanctions against Russia would have a backfire effect: Russia is mostly unscathed, their oil and gas revenues are soaring; meanwhile Germany is talking about rationing. Sanctions don't work in an interconnected economy.