Discussion:
The Moral Case for Sanctions Against Russia
Add Reply
wolfbat359
2018-04-07 12:01:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2

excerpt:

A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed, the very idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.

The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.

The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.

Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....
GLOBALIST
2018-04-07 12:11:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed, the very idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....
Anti Russian propaganda. Hating millions of people who are
leading very healthy and happy lives The Russians are
naturally a very religious people and the morality of
considering them our enemy is STUPID
rumpelstiltskin
2018-04-07 15:13:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed, the very
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....
If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.

As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.

I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
spiteful and spoiled-rotten little kids would do, to me:
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.
islander
2018-04-07 18:46:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed, the very
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....
If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.
Russians seem to like spending money on Trump real estate. Wan
rumpelstiltskin
2018-04-08 06:11:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed, the
very
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....
If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.
Russians seem to like spending money on Trump real estate. Want to bet
that that is not sanctioned?
I bet it won't be, but I could be wrong about that.
It's hard to know where Trump's going to go next.
He can back down strategically if he sees that
something is really unpopular. If it cuts into his
own pocketbook that might make it a different
story, but maybe not. After all, how much money
does one person need? On the other hand,
people really like to feel superior, and money can
do that.
islander
2018-04-08 14:06:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed, the
very
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....
If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.
Russians seem to like spending money on Trump real estate. Want to bet
that that is not sanctioned?
I bet it won't be, but I could be wrong about that.
It's hard to know where Trump's going to go next.
He can back down strategically if he sees that
something is really unpopular. If it cuts into his
own pocketbook that might make it a different
story, but maybe not. After all, how much money
does one person need? On the other hand,
people really like to feel superior, and money can
do that.
Sadly, there are people for whom there is never enough money to satisfy
them.

rumpelstiltskin
2018-04-08 16:00:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed, the
very
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....
If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.
Russians seem to like spending money on Trump real estate. Want to bet
that that is not sanctioned?
I bet it won't be, but I could be wrong about that.
It's hard to know where Trump's going to go next.
He can back down strategically if he sees that
something is really unpopular. If it cuts into his
own pocketbook that might make it a different
story, but maybe not. After all, how much money
does one person need? On the other hand,
people really like to feel superior, and money can
do that.
Sadly, there are people for whom there is never enough money to satisfy
them.

That's why we shouldn't be letting them run the country,
but unfortunately that's exactly what we're letting them do,
with eager assistance from politicians who want a little bit
of their money.
islander
2018-04-09 00:56:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed, the
very
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....
If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.
Russians seem to like spending money on Trump real estate. Want to bet
that that is not sanctioned?
I bet it won't be, but I could be wrong about that.
It's hard to know where Trump's going to go next.
He can back down strategically if he sees that
something is really unpopular. If it cuts into his
own pocketbook that might make it a different
story, but maybe not. After all, how much money
does one person need? On the other hand,
people really like to feel superior, and money can
do that.
Sadly, there are people for whom there is never enough money to satisfy
them. http://youtu.be/bEmjiCoZ6e4
That's why we shouldn't be letting them run the country,
but unfortunately that's exactly what we're letting them do,
with eager assistance from politicians who want a little bit
of their money.
Do
rumpelstiltskin
2018-04-09 05:26:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed,
the
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
very
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....
If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.
Russians seem to like spending money on Trump real estate. Want to bet
that that is not sanctioned?
I bet it won't be, but I could be wrong about that.
It's hard to know where Trump's going to go next.
He can back down strategically if he sees that
something is really unpopular. If it cuts into his
own pocketbook that might make it a different
story, but maybe not. After all, how much money
does one person need? On the other hand,
people really like to feel superior, and money can
do that.
Sadly, there are people for whom there is never enough money to satisfy
them. http://youtu.be/bEmjiCoZ6e4
That's why we shouldn't be letting them run the country,
but unfortunately that's exactly what we're letting them do,
with eager assistance from politicians who want a little bit
of their money.
Do you think it is better or worse in Russia?
In the minds of most people, including myself, the USA
is the best (perhaps) and greatest (surely) nation of this
age. That doesn't at all mean that it's pure as the driven
snow, any more than Britain was when it was capturing
slaves from Africa and selling them, murdering anybody
who stood in the way, and subjugating the people of the
nations it took over.

Another failed attempt with smelly roseate Norwegian
fish. Those fish are what get us into a lot of trouble,
because some people buy them eagerly, from Washington
and from all the mainstream news outlets, all without
realizing they're being led down the primrose path, if I
may be permitted to mix metaphors.
islander
2018-04-09 14:24:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed,
the
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
very
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....
If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.
Russians seem to like spending money on Trump real estate. Want to bet
that that is not sanctioned?
I bet it won't be, but I could be wrong about that.
It's hard to know where Trump's going to go next.
He can back down strategically if he sees that
something is really unpopular. If it cuts into his
own pocketbook that might make it a different
story, but maybe not. After all, how much money
does one person need? On the other hand,
people really like to feel superior, and money can
do that.
Sadly, there are people for whom there is never enough money to satisfy
them. http://youtu.be/bEmjiCoZ6e4
That's why we shouldn't be letting them run the country,
but unfortunately that's exactly what we're letting them do,
with eager assistance from politicians who want a little bit
of their money.
Do you think it is better or worse in Russia?
In the minds of most people, including myself, the USA
is the best (perhaps) and greatest (surely) nation of this
age. That doesn't at all mean that it's pure as the driven
snow, any more than Britain was when it was capturing
slaves from Africa and selling them, murdering anybody
who stood in the way, and subjugating the people of the
nations it took over.
Another failed attempt with smelly roseate Norwegian
fish. Those fish are what get us into a lot of trouble,
because some people buy them eagerly, from Washington
and from all the mainstream news outlets, all without
realizing they're being led down the primrose path, if I
may be permitted to mix metaphors.
I doubt that there is any country that is free of the influence of money
on politics, so we can and should aspire to be better. Personally, I
think that we have taken a big step backward in this respect in the
Trump administration. Instead of being immune from bribery because he
is already rich, he seems to have raised it to a whole
El Castor
2018-04-08 07:49:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed, the
very
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....
If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.
Russians seem to like spending money on Trump real estate. Want to bet
that that is not sanctioned?
Instead of idle conjectures, don't you think you should post facts??

Here is what appears to be available -- from 4 days ago ...
"The United States is expected to impose additional sanctions against
Russia by Friday, according to U.S. officials.
The sanctions are economic and designed to target oligarchs with ties
to President Vladimir Putin, the officials said. The final number of
Russians facing punitive action remains fluid, the U.S. officials
said, but is expected to include at least a half-dozen people."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-to-impose-fresh-sanctions-against-russia/2018/04/04/bc09e0b8-3851-11e8-b57c-9445cc4dfa5e_story.html?utm_term=.d5345b6d1e6c

Trump also kicked out 60 Russian spys -- or as the Washington Post
observed ...
"the largest expulsion of Russian spies and diplomats in U.S. history"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-trump-got-toyes-on-the-biggest-purge-of-russian-spies-in-us-history/2018/03/29/3e056a28-337b-11e8-8abc-22a366b72f2d_story.html?utm_term=.c2534f1e4654

BTW -- The Trump administration, much to MG's dismay, also made RT
(Russia Today -- US TV channel) register as a foreign agent.

Gosh, If Trump actually colluded with Russia, wouldn't he be afraid to
do those things for fear Russia would expose his nefarious dealings?
Gosh, if Russia
islander
2018-04-08 13:54:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed, the
very
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....
If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.
Russians seem to like spending money on Trump real estate. Want to bet
that that is not sanctioned?
Instead of idle conjectures, don't you think you should post facts??
Here is what appears to be available -- from 4 days ago ...
"The United States is expected to impose additional sanctions against
Russia by Friday, according to U.S. officials.
The sanctions are economic and designed to target oligarchs with ties
to President Vladimir Putin, the officials said. The final number of
Russians facing punitive action remains fluid, the U.S. officials
said, but is expected to include at least a half-dozen people."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-to-impose-fresh-sanctions-against-russia/2018/04/04/bc09e0b8-3851-11e8-b57c-9445cc4dfa5e_story.html?utm_term=.d5345b6d1e6c
Trump also kicked out 60 Russian spys -- or as the Washington Post
observed ...
"the largest expulsion of Russian spies and diplomats in U.S. history"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-trump-got-toyes-on-the-biggest-purge-of-russian-spies-in-us-history/2018/03/29/3e056a28-337b-11e8-8abc-22a366b72f2d_story.html?utm_term=.c2534f1e4654
BTW -- The Trump administration, much to MG's dismay, also made RT
(Russia Today -- US TV channel) register as a foreign agent.
Gosh, If Trump actually colluded with Russia, wouldn't he be afraid to
do those things for fear Russia would expose his nefarious dealings?
Gosh, if Russia
Trump is being pushed into a corner and I don't think that he had a
choice in finally taking these actions. The poisoning of Skripal and
his daughter (and his pets) was the last straw. This was really nasty
stuff!

Personally, I don't agree with the expelling of diplomats unless there
is proof that they are actually spies. Diplomatic missions are
essential to maintaining dialog between states and right now we need
dialog much more than we need sabre rattling. We are as guilty as
anyone else in hiding spies in diplomatic missions and that is
counterproduct
rumpelstiltskin
2018-04-08 16:00:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed, the
very
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....
If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.
Russians seem to like spending money on Trump real estate. Want to bet
that that is not sanctioned?
Instead of idle conjectures, don't you think you should post facts??
Here is what appears to be available -- from 4 days ago ...
"The United States is expected to impose additional sanctions against
Russia by Friday, according to U.S. officials.
The sanctions are economic and designed to target oligarchs with ties
to President Vladimir Putin, the officials said. The final number of
Russians facing punitive action remains fluid, the U.S. officials
said, but is expected to include at least a half-dozen people."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-to-impose-fresh-sanctions-against-russia/2018/04/04/bc09e0b8-3851-11e8-b57c-9445cc4dfa5e_story.html?utm_term=.d5345b6d1e6c
Trump also kicked out 60 Russian spys -- or as the Washington Post
observed ...
"the largest expulsion of Russian spies and diplomats in U.S. history"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-trump-got-toyes-on-the-biggest-purge-of-russian-spies-in-us-history/2018/03/29/3e056a28-337b-11e8-8abc-22a366b72f2d_story.html?utm_term=.c2534f1e4654
BTW -- The Trump administration, much to MG's dismay, also made RT
(Russia Today -- US TV channel) register as a foreign agent.
Gosh, If Trump actually colluded with Russia, wouldn't he be afraid to
do those things for fear Russia would expose his nefarious dealings?
Gosh, if Russia
Trump is being pushed into a corner and I don't think that he had a
choice in finally taking these actions. The poisoning of Skripal and
his daughter (and his pets) was the last straw. This was really nasty
stuff!
Have you checked with Theresa May about that? She might be
able to direct you to some British, or even American, secretive
agencies that might have something to do with it, as likely or
MORE likely than Russia.

The philosophy of secretive agencies seems to be that if you
don't have the people on your side, you haven't been working
at it hard enough. They have their own "goals" which don't
coincide with mine. Need I mention Vietnam, Cuba,
El Salvador, Nicaragua, Palestine, Venezuela, Cuba,
Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya, for example?
Post by islander
Personally, I don't agree with the expelling of diplomats unless there
is proof that they are actually spies. Diplomatic missions are
essential to maintaining dialog between states and right now we need
dialog much more than we need sabre rattling. We are as guilty as
anyone else in hiding spies in diplomatic missions and that is
counterproductive IMV.
islander
2018-04-09 01:00:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed, the
very
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....
If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.
Russians seem to like spending money on Trump real estate. Want to bet
that that is not sanctioned?
Instead of idle conjectures, don't you think you should post facts??
Here is what appears to be available -- from 4 days ago ...
"The United States is expected to impose additional sanctions against
Russia by Friday, according to U.S. officials.
The sanctions are economic and designed to target oligarchs with ties
to President Vladimir Putin, the officials said. The final number of
Russians facing punitive action remains fluid, the U.S. officials
said, but is expected to include at least a half-dozen people."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-to-impose-fresh-sanctions-against-russia/2018/04/04/bc09e0b8-3851-11e8-b57c-9445cc4dfa5e_story.html?utm_term=.d5345b6d1e6c
Trump also kicked out 60 Russian spys -- or as the Washington Post
observed ...
"the largest expulsion of Russian spies and diplomats in U.S. history"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-trump-got-toyes-on-the-biggest-purge-of-russian-spies-in-us-history/2018/03/29/3e056a28-337b-11e8-8abc-22a366b72f2d_story.html?utm_term=.c2534f1e4654
BTW -- The Trump administration, much to MG's dismay, also made RT
(Russia Today -- US TV channel) register as a foreign agent.
Gosh, If Trump actually colluded with Russia, wouldn't he be afraid to
do those things for fear Russia would expose his nefarious dealings?
Gosh, if Russia
Trump is being pushed into a corner and I don't think that he had a
choice in finally taking these actions. The poisoning of Skripal and
his daughter (and his pets) was the last straw. This was really nasty
stuff!
Have you checked with Theresa May about that? She might be
able to direct you to some British, or even American, secretive
agencies that might have something to do with it, as likely or
MORE likely than Russia.
The philosophy of secretive agencies seems to be that if you
don't have the people on your side, you haven't been working
at it hard enough. They have their own "goals" which don't
coincide with mine. Need I mention Vietnam, Cuba,
El Salvador, Nicaragua, Palestine, Venezuela, Cuba,
Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya, for example?
That reduces us to arguing about who is worse. Not to defend US
interference in other country's business, but have you ever heard about
the US poisoning spies? I haven't.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Personally, I don't agree with the expelling of diplomats unless there
is proof that they are actually spies. Diplomatic missions are
essential to maintaining dialog between states and right now we need
dialog much more than we need sabre rattling. We are as guilty as
anyone else in hiding spies in diplomatic missions and that is
counterprod
rumpelstiltskin
2018-04-09 05:26:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed,
the
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
very
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....
If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.
Russians seem to like spending money on Trump real estate. Want to bet
that that is not sanctioned?
Instead of idle conjectures, don't you think you should post facts??
Here is what appears to be available -- from 4 days ago ...
"The United States is expected to impose additional sanctions against
Russia by Friday, according to U.S. officials.
The sanctions are economic and designed to target oligarchs with ties
to President Vladimir Putin, the officials said. The final number of
Russians facing punitive action remains fluid, the U.S. officials
said, but is expected to include at least a half-dozen people."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-to-impose-fresh-sanctions-against-russia/2018/04/04/bc09e0b8-3851-11e8-b57c-9445cc4dfa5e_story.html?utm_term=.d5345b6d1e6c
Trump also kicked out 60 Russian spys -- or as the Washington Post
observed ...
"the largest expulsion of Russian spies and diplomats in U.S. history"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-trump-got-toyes-on-the-biggest-purge-of-russian-spies-in-us-history/2018/03/29/3e056a28-337b-11e8-8abc-22a366b72f2d_story.html?utm_term=.c2534f1e4654
BTW -- The Trump administration, much to MG's dismay, also made RT
(Russia Today -- US TV channel) register as a foreign agent.
Gosh, If Trump actually colluded with Russia, wouldn't he be afraid to
do those things for fear Russia would expose his nefarious dealings?
Gosh, if Russia
Trump is being pushed into a corner and I don't think that he had a
choice in finally taking these actions. The poisoning of Skripal and
his daughter (and his pets) was the last straw. This was really nasty
stuff!
Have you checked with Theresa May about that? She might be
able to direct you to some British, or even American, secretive
agencies that might have something to do with it, as likely or
MORE likely than Russia.
The philosophy of secretive agencies seems to be that if you
don't have the people on your side, you haven't been working
at it hard enough. They have their own "goals" which don't
coincide with mine. Need I mention Vietnam, Cuba,
El Salvador, Nicaragua, Palestine, Venezuela, Cuba,
Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya, for example?
That reduces us to arguing about who is worse. Not to defend US
interference in other country's business, but have you ever heard about
the US poisoning spies? I haven't.
Do you doubt that US secret agencies have murdered
people, a lot of people? I don't doubt it.
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Personally, I don't agree with the expelling of diplomats unless there
is proof that they are actually spies. Diplomatic missions are
essential to maintaining dialog between states and right now we need
dialog much more than we need sabre rattling. We are as guilty as
anyone else in hiding spies in diplomatic missions and that is
counterproductive IMV.
islander
2018-04-09 14:08:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed,
the
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
very
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....
If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.
Russians seem to like spending money on Trump real estate. Want to bet
that that is not sanctioned?
Instead of idle conjectures, don't you think you should post facts??
Here is what appears to be available -- from 4 days ago ...
"The United States is expected to impose additional sanctions against
Russia by Friday, according to U.S. officials.
The sanctions are economic and designed to target oligarchs with ties
to President Vladimir Putin, the officials said. The final number of
Russians facing punitive action remains fluid, the U.S. officials
said, but is expected to include at least a half-dozen people."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-to-impose-fresh-sanctions-against-russia/2018/04/04/bc09e0b8-3851-11e8-b57c-9445cc4dfa5e_story.html?utm_term=.d5345b6d1e6c
Trump also kicked out 60 Russian spys -- or as the Washington Post
observed ...
"the largest expulsion of Russian spies and diplomats in U.S. history"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-trump-got-toyes-on-the-biggest-purge-of-russian-spies-in-us-history/2018/03/29/3e056a28-337b-11e8-8abc-22a366b72f2d_story.html?utm_term=.c2534f1e4654
BTW -- The Trump administration, much to MG's dismay, also made RT
(Russia Today -- US TV channel) register as a foreign agent.
Gosh, If Trump actually colluded with Russia, wouldn't he be afraid to
do those things for fear Russia would expose his nefarious dealings?
Gosh, if Russia
Trump is being pushed into a corner and I don't think that he had a
choice in finally taking these actions. The poisoning of Skripal and
his daughter (and his pets) was the last straw. This was really nasty
stuff!
Have you checked with Theresa May about that? She might be
able to direct you to some British, or even American, secretive
agencies that might have something to do with it, as likely or
MORE likely than Russia.
The philosophy of secretive agencies seems to be that if you
don't have the people on your side, you haven't been working
at it hard enough. They have their own "goals" which don't
coincide with mine. Need I mention Vietnam, Cuba,
El Salvador, Nicaragua, Palestine, Venezuela, Cuba,
Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya, for example?
That reduces us to arguing about who is worse. Not to defend US
interference in other country's business, but have you ever heard about
the US poisoning spies? I haven't.
Do you doubt that US secret agencies have murdered
people, a lot of people? I don't doubt it.
I seriously doubt that it could be kept secret if they did.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Personally, I don't agree with the expelling of diplomats unless there
is proof that they are actually spies. Diplomatic missions are
essential to maintaining dialog between states and right now we need
dialog much more than we need sabre rattling. We are as guilty as
anyone else in hiding spies in diplomatic missions and that is
counterproductive IMV.
El Castor
2018-04-08 20:12:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed, the
very
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....
If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.
Russians seem to like spending money on Trump real estate. Want to bet
that that is not sanctioned?
Instead of idle conjectures, don't you think you should post facts??
Here is what appears to be available -- from 4 days ago ...
"The United States is expected to impose additional sanctions against
Russia by Friday, according to U.S. officials.
The sanctions are economic and designed to target oligarchs with ties
to President Vladimir Putin, the officials said. The final number of
Russians facing punitive action remains fluid, the U.S. officials
said, but is expected to include at least a half-dozen people."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-to-impose-fresh-sanctions-against-russia/2018/04/04/bc09e0b8-3851-11e8-b57c-9445cc4dfa5e_story.html?utm_term=.d5345b6d1e6c
Trump also kicked out 60 Russian spys -- or as the Washington Post
observed ...
"the largest expulsion of Russian spies and diplomats in U.S. history"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-trump-got-toyes-on-the-biggest-purge-of-russian-spies-in-us-history/2018/03/29/3e056a28-337b-11e8-8abc-22a366b72f2d_story.html?utm_term=.c2534f1e4654
BTW -- The Trump administration, much to MG's dismay, also made RT
(Russia Today -- US TV channel) register as a foreign agent.
Gosh, If Trump actually colluded with Russia, wouldn't he be afraid to
do those things for fear Russia would expose his nefarious dealings?
Gosh, if Russia
Trump is being pushed into a corner and I don't think that he had a
choice in finally taking these actions. The poisoning of Skripal and
his daughter (and his pets) was the last straw. This was really nasty
stuff!
Personally, I don't agree with the expelling of diplomats unless there
is proof that they are actually spies. Diplomatic missions are
essential to maintaining dialog between states and right now we need
dialog much more than we need sabre rattling. We are as guilty as
anyone else in hiding spies in diplomatic missions and that is
counterproductive IMV.
I am not questioning the wisdom of Trump's actions. I am merely
pointing out that if Trump colluded with Russia, his aggressive
actions against Russia might be expected to result in the release of
information that could lead to his impeachment -- so why take the
chance, unless he is innocent? BTW -- most of the British allies who
ejected a Russian diplomat, ejected just one.
islander
2018-04-09 01:02:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed, the
very
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....
If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.
Russians seem to like spending money on Trump real estate. Want to bet
that that is not sanctioned?
Instead of idle conjectures, don't you think you should post facts??
Here is what appears to be available -- from 4 days ago ...
"The United States is expected to impose additional sanctions against
Russia by Friday, according to U.S. officials.
The sanctions are economic and designed to target oligarchs with ties
to President Vladimir Putin, the officials said. The final number of
Russians facing punitive action remains fluid, the U.S. officials
said, but is expected to include at least a half-dozen people."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-to-impose-fresh-sanctions-against-russia/2018/04/04/bc09e0b8-3851-11e8-b57c-9445cc4dfa5e_story.html?utm_term=.d5345b6d1e6c
Trump also kicked out 60 Russian spys -- or as the Washington Post
observed ...
"the largest expulsion of Russian spies and diplomats in U.S. history"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-trump-got-toyes-on-the-biggest-purge-of-russian-spies-in-us-history/2018/03/29/3e056a28-337b-11e8-8abc-22a366b72f2d_story.html?utm_term=.c2534f1e4654
BTW -- The Trump administration, much to MG's dismay, also made RT
(Russia Today -- US TV channel) register as a foreign agent.
Gosh, If Trump actually colluded with Russia, wouldn't he be afraid to
do those things for fear Russia would expose his nefarious dealings?
Gosh, if Russia
Trump is being pushed into a corner and I don't think that he had a
choice in finally taking these actions. The poisoning of Skripal and
his daughter (and his pets) was the last straw. This was really nasty
stuff!
Personally, I don't agree with the expelling of diplomats unless there
is proof that they are actually spies. Diplomatic missions are
essential to maintaining dialog between states and right now we need
dialog much more than we need sabre rattling. We are as guilty as
anyone else in hiding spies in diplomatic missions and that is
counterproductive IMV.
I am not questioning the wisdom of Trump's actions. I am merely
pointing out that if Trump colluded with Russia, his aggressive
actions against Russia might be expected to result in the release of
information that could lead to his impeachment -- so why take the
chance, unless he is innocent? BTW -- most of the British allies who
ejected a Russian diplomat, ejected just one.
Russia plays chess while we play checkers. Make no mistake, they are
playing the long game while Trump flounder
El Castor
2018-04-09 08:48:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed,
the
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
very
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....
If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.
Russians seem to like spending money on Trump real estate. Want to bet
that that is not sanctioned?
Instead of idle conjectures, don't you think you should post facts??
Here is what appears to be available -- from 4 days ago ...
"The United States is expected to impose additional sanctions against
Russia by Friday, according to U.S. officials.
The sanctions are economic and designed to target oligarchs with ties
to President Vladimir Putin, the officials said. The final number of
Russians facing punitive action remains fluid, the U.S. officials
said, but is expected to include at least a half-dozen people."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-to-impose-fresh-sanctions-against-russia/2018/04/04/bc09e0b8-3851-11e8-b57c-9445cc4dfa5e_story.html?utm_term=.d5345b6d1e6c
Trump also kicked out 60 Russian spys -- or as the Washington Post
observed ...
"the largest expulsion of Russian spies and diplomats in U.S. history"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-trump-got-toyes-on-the-biggest-purge-of-russian-spies-in-us-history/2018/03/29/3e056a28-337b-11e8-8abc-22a366b72f2d_story.html?utm_term=.c2534f1e4654
BTW -- The Trump administration, much to MG's dismay, also made RT
(Russia Today -- US TV channel) register as a foreign agent.
Gosh, If Trump actually colluded with Russia, wouldn't he be afraid to
do those things for fear Russia would expose his nefarious dealings?
Gosh, if Russia
Trump is being pushed into a corner and I don't think that he had a
choice in finally taking these actions. The poisoning of Skripal and
his daughter (and his pets) was the last straw. This was really nasty
stuff!
Personally, I don't agree with the expelling of diplomats unless there
is proof that they are actually spies. Diplomatic missions are
essential to maintaining dialog between states and right now we need
dialog much more than we need sabre rattling. We are as guilty as
anyone else in hiding spies in diplomatic missions and that is
counterproductive IMV.
I am not questioning the wisdom of Trump's actions. I am merely
pointing out that if Trump colluded with Russia, his aggressive
actions against Russia might be expected to result in the release of
information that could lead to his impeachment -- so why take the
chance, unless he is innocent? BTW -- most of the British allies who
ejected a Russian diplomat, ejected just one.
Russia plays chess while we play checkers. Make no mistake, they are
playing the long game while Trump flounders.
And Obama played what? Golf? The long game player we have to worry
about is China, not Russia. About 5 years ago China formulated its
Made In China 2025 Plan. China intends to soon become the world's
dominant industrial and economic super power.

"Made in China policy at centre of tariff war with US"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/04/made-in-china-policy-at-centre-of-tariff-war-with-us

The 20th century was the century of the United States, but the 21st
will likely be the century of China.
islander
2018-04-09 13:59:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed,
the
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
very
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....
If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.
Russians seem to like spending money on Trump real estate. Want to bet
that that is not sanctioned?
Instead of idle conjectures, don't you think you should post facts??
Here is what appears to be available -- from 4 days ago ...
"The United States is expected to impose additional sanctions against
Russia by Friday, according to U.S. officials.
The sanctions are economic and designed to target oligarchs with ties
to President Vladimir Putin, the officials said. The final number of
Russians facing punitive action remains fluid, the U.S. officials
said, but is expected to include at least a half-dozen people."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-to-impose-fresh-sanctions-against-russia/2018/04/04/bc09e0b8-3851-11e8-b57c-9445cc4dfa5e_story.html?utm_term=.d5345b6d1e6c
Trump also kicked out 60 Russian spys -- or as the Washington Post
observed ...
"the largest expulsion of Russian spies and diplomats in U.S. history"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-trump-got-toyes-on-the-biggest-purge-of-russian-spies-in-us-history/2018/03/29/3e056a28-337b-11e8-8abc-22a366b72f2d_story.html?utm_term=.c2534f1e4654
BTW -- The Trump administration, much to MG's dismay, also made RT
(Russia Today -- US TV channel) register as a foreign agent.
Gosh, If Trump actually colluded with Russia, wouldn't he be afraid to
do those things for fear Russia would expose his nefarious dealings?
Gosh, if Russia
Trump is being pushed into a corner and I don't think that he had a
choice in finally taking these actions. The poisoning of Skripal and
his daughter (and his pets) was the last straw. This was really nasty
stuff!
Personally, I don't agree with the expelling of diplomats unless there
is proof that they are actually spies. Diplomatic missions are
essential to maintaining dialog between states and right now we need
dialog much more than we need sabre rattling. We are as guilty as
anyone else in hiding spies in diplomatic missions and that is
counterproductive IMV.
I am not questioning the wisdom of Trump's actions. I am merely
pointing out that if Trump colluded with Russia, his aggressive
actions against Russia might be expected to result in the release of
information that could lead to his impeachment -- so why take the
chance, unless he is innocent? BTW -- most of the British allies who
ejected a Russian diplomat, ejected just one.
Russia plays chess while we play checkers. Make no mistake, they are
playing the long game while Trump flounders.
And Obama played what? Golf? The long game player we have to worry
about is China, not Russia. About 5 years ago China formulated its
Made In China 2025 Plan. China intends to soon become the world's
dominant industrial and economic super power.
"Made in China policy at centre of tariff war with US"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/04/made-in-china-policy-at-centre-of-tariff-war-with-us
The 20th century was the century of the United States, but the 21st
will likely be the century of China.
There you go again! Are you incapable of holding a conversation without
attempting to deflect the discussion to Obama, Clinton, etc.? Do you
really feel that
b***@gmail.com
2018-04-08 04:37:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed, the very
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....
If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.
I can't figure out how tariffs work and who gets the extra money. If China sells us a product for a dollar and there is a 10% tariff, who gets the extra 10 cents and who pays it?
rumpelstiltskin
2018-04-08 06:11:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed, the
very
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....
If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.
I can't figure out how tariffs work and who gets the extra money. If China sells us a product for a dollar and there is a 10% tariff, who gets the extra 10 cents and who pays it?
The US government gets it, which in an ideal world (ha-ha!)
would mean that taxes could be reduced for the Middle Class.
(Who cares about the rich? the "real" taxes they pay could triple
and they'd still be rich.) The items that were tariffed would
then have to be made in the USA, which would increase the
price but also provide good jobs for non-billionaires, as long
as 98% of the profits didn't go to the rich - We need UNIONS
to put a stop to that, or that's the way it will stay.
islander
2018-04-08 14:22:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed, the
very
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....
If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.
I can't figure out how tariffs work and who gets the extra money. If China sells us a product for a dollar and there is a 10% tariff, who gets the extra 10 cents and who pays it?
The US government gets it, which in an ideal world (ha-ha!)
would mean that taxes could be reduced for the Middle Class.
(Who cares about the rich? the "real" taxes they pay could triple
and they'd still be rich.) The items that were tariffed would
then have to be made in the USA, which would increase the
price but also provide good jobs for non-billionaires, as long
as 98% of the profits didn't go to the rich - We need UNIONS
to put a stop to that, or that's the way it will stay.
The ham-handed way that the Trump administration is implementing tariffs
is simply providing proof of what conservatives have been claiming - it
is producing a trade war. The Chinese are being very clever in
responding with tariffs against companies that are in states that
supported Trump. This is all very dangerous and Trump doesn't seem to
have a clue.

I'm coming around to the opinion that it was a mistake to oppose TPP.
The bottom line is that it would have united Pacific rim countries and
diminished Chinese economic influence in the region. In killing TPP, we
are now seeing China move into the void that we left. That is not a
good thing IMV.

There is a lot of false information out there now about how China is
stealing our intellectual property. I say that it is false because it
has primarily been US companies that have spread our intellectual
property into the countries where they have built factories and even
research centers. We used to talk about intellectual property being a
leaky bucket, but we are now seeing companies openly taking intellectual
property into foreign countries as part of doing business. One of the
biggest offenders is now Boeing. Watch China enter the aircraft
industry in the
rumpelstiltskin
2018-04-08 16:00:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 07:22:23 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
<snip>
Post by islander
The ham-handed way that the Trump administration is implementing tariffs
is simply providing proof of what conservatives have been claiming - it
is producing a trade war. The Chinese are being very clever in
responding with tariffs against companies that are in states that
supported Trump. This is all very dangerous and Trump doesn't seem to
have a clue.
Go for it, I say. Ham-handed is better than the nothing we've had
for years and years and years, while the USA turns more and more
into an oligarchy, assisted even by the Supreme Court.
Post by islander
I'm coming around to the opinion that it was a mistake to oppose TPP.
The bottom line is that it would have united Pacific rim countries and
diminished Chinese economic influence in the region. In killing TPP, we
are now seeing China move into the void that we left. That is not a
good thing IMV.
I don't like any of those deals, including NAFTA and the WTO.
Post by islander
There is a lot of false information out there now about how China is
stealing our intellectual property. I say that it is false because it
has primarily been US companies that have spread our intellectual
property into the countries where they have built factories and even
research centers. We used to talk about intellectual property being a
leaky bucket, but we are now seeing companies openly taking intellectual
property into foreign countries as part of doing business. One of the
biggest offenders is now Boeing. Watch China enter the aircraft
industry in the not too distant future.
The USA shouldn't IMV, have any control over how other
sovereign nations run their countries. The oligarch class
is not a super-government that should have control over
the whole world.

Chopin said "I am a revolutionary", and I certainly admire
him over any politician or oligarch.
https://tinyurl.com/ycdm9o2h
That URL mentions John Field. A couple of days ago I turned
on the radio and was perplexed to hear what sounded just
like Chopin, except that it was orchestral and Chopin didn't
write any orchestral music after his two great Piano Concerti
at age 18. Finally the music ended, and the announcer said
it was John Field. I nearly slapped myself for not realizing
that. Just as "Marlowe was Shakespeare before Shakespeare
was Shakespeare", Field was Chopin before Chopin was
Chopin. And Field also wrote 8 mature piano concerti, of
which the one I'd been listening to was #3.

The above URL does make the mistake of calling Field
"English". He was Irish.
El Castor
2018-04-08 20:25:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed, the
very
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....
If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.
I can't figure out how tariffs work and who gets the extra money. If China sells us a product for a dollar and there is a 10% tariff, who gets the extra 10 cents and who pays it?
The US government gets it, which in an ideal world (ha-ha!)
would mean that taxes could be reduced for the Middle Class.
(Who cares about the rich? the "real" taxes they pay could triple
and they'd still be rich.) The items that were tariffed would
then have to be made in the USA, which would increase the
price but also provide good jobs for non-billionaires, as long
as 98% of the profits didn't go to the rich - We need UNIONS
to put a stop to that, or that's the way it will stay.
The ham-handed way that the Trump administration is implementing tariffs
is simply providing proof of what conservatives have been claiming - it
is producing a trade war. The Chinese are being very clever in
responding with tariffs against companies that are in states that
supported Trump. This is all very dangerous and Trump doesn't seem to
have a clue.
I'm coming around to the opinion that it was a mistake to oppose TPP.
The bottom line is that it would have united Pacific rim countries and
diminished Chinese economic influence in the region. In killing TPP, we
are now seeing China move into the void that we left. That is not a
good thing IMV.
There is a lot of false information out there now about how China is
stealing our intellectual property. I say that it is false because it
has primarily been US companies that have spread our intellectual
property into the countries where they have built factories and even
research centers. We used to talk about intellectual property being a
leaky bucket, but we are now seeing companies openly taking intellectual
property into foreign countries as part of doing business. One of the
biggest offenders is now Boeing. Watch China enter the aircraft
industry in the not too distant future.
I am not in the Trump is always right camp, but are you aware that
because of the much lower cost of Chinese steel we have been slowly
closing steel plants for years, and the last ones were believed to
have about 3 years to live. There is a pretty strong argument that we
have a vital national interest in maintaing domestic steel and
aluminum industries. A soy bean farmer can grow something else, but a
shoe factory can't smelt steel.
islander
2018-04-09 00:54:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed, the
very
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....
If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.
I can't figure out how tariffs work and who gets the extra money. If China sells us a product for a dollar and there is a 10% tariff, who gets the extra 10 cents and who pays it?
The US government gets it, which in an ideal world (ha-ha!)
would mean that taxes could be reduced for the Middle Class.
(Who cares about the rich? the "real" taxes they pay could triple
and they'd still be rich.) The items that were tariffed would
then have to be made in the USA, which would increase the
price but also provide good jobs for non-billionaires, as long
as 98% of the profits didn't go to the rich - We need UNIONS
to put a stop to that, or that's the way it will stay.
The ham-handed way that the Trump administration is implementing tariffs
is simply providing proof of what conservatives have been claiming - it
is producing a trade war. The Chinese are being very clever in
responding with tariffs against companies that are in states that
supported Trump. This is all very dangerous and Trump doesn't seem to
have a clue.
I'm coming around to the opinion that it was a mistake to oppose TPP.
The bottom line is that it would have united Pacific rim countries and
diminished Chinese economic influence in the region. In killing TPP, we
are now seeing China move into the void that we left. That is not a
good thing IMV.
There is a lot of false information out there now about how China is
stealing our intellectual property. I say that it is false because it
has primarily been US companies that have spread our intellectual
property into the countries where they have built factories and even
research centers. We used to talk about intellectual property being a
leaky bucket, but we are now seeing companies openly taking intellectual
property into foreign countries as part of doing business. One of the
biggest offenders is now Boeing. Watch China enter the aircraft
industry in the not too distant future.
I am not in the Trump is always right camp, but are you aware that
because of the much lower cost of Chinese steel we have been slowly
closing steel plants for years, and the last ones were believed to
have about 3 years to live. There is a pretty strong argument that we
have a vital national interest in maintaing domestic steel and
aluminum industries. A soy bean farmer can grow something else, but a
shoe factory can't smelt steel.
There is a LOT more to that story. Following WWII, we didn't invest in
upgrading the steel mills while we invested in replacing the steel mills
in war ravaged Japan with modern equipment. We lost the steel mills
because it was cheaper for companies to buy steel from Japan and then
other Asian countries who made the investment. I saw the steel mills
close in Pennsylvania and good ridden! They were a blight on Pittsburgh
and no-one wanted to step up to clean up the mess that they left behind
in the rush to Japan. There was some interest for a while in boutique
mills that specialized in unique alloys. I don't know what happened to
that - I stopped following it years ago. Then, there was Alabama where
my FIL wanted me to go to work after I graduated from college. Forget
about that! Alabama was just one more step to the bottom.

We now have an economy that is much more dependent on steel that we can
purchase elsewhere. In fact, we get very little steel from China. Most
of our steel comes from Canada 16.7%, Brazil 13.2%, South Korea 9.7% and
Mexico 9.4%. Much better that we focus on high value added
manufacturing rather than attempting to subsidize industries that have
shown no interest in locating domestically.

As to aluminum, we have a massive plant on the mainland near here made
possible with very low cost energy. It is heavily automated and doesn't
employ many people (less than 600). We see ships bringing bauxite
El Castor
2018-04-09 09:07:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed,
the
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by b***@gmail.com
very
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....
If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.
I can't figure out how tariffs work and who gets the extra money. If China sells us a product for a dollar and there is a 10% tariff, who gets the extra 10 cents and who pays it?
The US government gets it, which in an ideal world (ha-ha!)
would mean that taxes could be reduced for the Middle Class.
(Who cares about the rich? the "real" taxes they pay could triple
and they'd still be rich.) The items that were tariffed would
then have to be made in the USA, which would increase the
price but also provide good jobs for non-billionaires, as long
as 98% of the profits didn't go to the rich - We need UNIONS
to put a stop to that, or that's the way it will stay.
The ham-handed way that the Trump administration is implementing tariffs
is simply providing proof of what conservatives have been claiming - it
is producing a trade war. The Chinese are being very clever in
responding with tariffs against companies that are in states that
supported Trump. This is all very dangerous and Trump doesn't seem to
have a clue.
I'm coming around to the opinion that it was a mistake to oppose TPP.
The bottom line is that it would have united Pacific rim countries and
diminished Chinese economic influence in the region. In killing TPP, we
are now seeing China move into the void that we left. That is not a
good thing IMV.
There is a lot of false information out there now about how China is
stealing our intellectual property. I say that it is false because it
has primarily been US companies that have spread our intellectual
property into the countries where they have built factories and even
research centers. We used to talk about intellectual property being a
leaky bucket, but we are now seeing companies openly taking intellectual
property into foreign countries as part of doing business. One of the
biggest offenders is now Boeing. Watch China enter the aircraft
industry in the not too distant future.
I am not in the Trump is always right camp, but are you aware that
because of the much lower cost of Chinese steel we have been slowly
closing steel plants for years, and the last ones were believed to
have about 3 years to live. There is a pretty strong argument that we
have a vital national interest in maintaing domestic steel and
aluminum industries. A soy bean farmer can grow something else, but a
shoe factory can't smelt steel.
There is a LOT more to that story. Following WWII, we didn't invest in
upgrading the steel mills while we invested in replacing the steel mills
in war ravaged Japan with modern equipment. We lost the steel mills
because it was cheaper for companies to buy steel from Japan and then
other Asian countries who made the investment. I saw the steel mills
close in Pennsylvania and good ridden! They were a blight on Pittsburgh
and no-one wanted to step up to clean up the mess that they left behind
in the rush to Japan. There was some interest for a while in boutique
mills that specialized in unique alloys. I don't know what happened to
that - I stopped following it years ago. Then, there was Alabama where
my FIL wanted me to go to work after I graduated from college. Forget
about that! Alabama was just one more step to the bottom.
We now have an economy that is much more dependent on steel that we can
purchase elsewhere. In fact, we get very little steel from China. Most
of our steel comes from Canada 16.7%, Brazil 13.2%, South Korea 9.7% and
Mexico 9.4%. Much better that we focus on high value added
manufacturing rather than attempting to subsidize industries that have
shown no interest in locating domestically.
As to aluminum, we have a massive plant on the mainland near here made
possible with very low cost energy. It is heavily automated and doesn't
employ many people (less than 600). We see ships bringing bauxite
through the strait frequently.
"China Churns Out Half The World's Steel, And Other Steelmakers Feel
Pinched"
"China now produces about half of the world's steel. It singlehandedly
churns out as much steel in one year as the entire world did in 2000.
During the same time, the U.S. share of global production has fallen
from 12 percent to 5 percent today"
https://www.npr.org/2018/03/08/591637097/china-churns-out-half-the-worlds-steel-and-other-steelmakers-feel-pinched


"Robert Scott, an economist with the Economic Policy Institute, said
foreign aluminum imports threatened the entire U.S. industry which was
hanging on “only by a thread” after a prolonged and steady decline in
aluminum prices. The threat was driven by growth of excess capacity
and overproduction in China, which had increased by nearly 1,500
percent between 2000 and 2017, he said. "
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-aluminium/china-pushes-back-as-u-s-aluminum-industry-urges-crackdown-on-imports-idUSKBN19D2EU

This is not happening by accident Google "made in china 2025"

And it's not just steel and aluminum.

"China’s Next Target: U.S. Microchip Hegemony"
https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-next-target-u-s-microchip-hegemony-1501168303

"China's Tsinghua to build $30 billion chip factory"
http://www.dw.com/en/chinas-tsinghua-to-build-30-billion-chip-factory/a-37205299
islander
2018-04-09 14:35:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed,
the
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by b***@gmail.com
very
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by wolfbat359
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
The third kind of sanctions is known in policy circles as “smart” sanctions. (Bolton is a staunch opponent of this kind of sanctions.) These are premised on a more nuanced world view, which sees Putinism as a system that can be undermined from within. One theory in support of targeted sanctions imagines that the Russian élites, once squeezed, will rebel against Putin—a theory that betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Putin’s mafia state works. Putin is a patriarch at the center of a clan where every member is dependent on him for money and personal security. These are not conditions that could foment an uprising. It is true, however, that targeted sanctions undermine Putin’s authority as the sole source of his élites’ well-being: they take aim at his status as the patriarch.
The sanctions announced Friday belong to this last category. Measured by proximity to Putin and the sheer amount of wealth affected, these are, without a doubt, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on Russia’s super rich. Still, what informed the targeting of particular individuals is unclear. Ilya Zaslavskiy, a Russian political exile who runs underminers.info, which he describes as a “research project on post-Soviet kleptocrats,” pointed out in an interview that two of the wealthiest and most influential of Putin’s subjects, Roman Abramovich and Alisher Usmanov, both of whom have vast holdings in the West, are not on the list, while Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, two men with very large holdings in the United States, and Alexey Miller, head of the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, are.
Will these targeted sanctions be effective? Anyone who expects them to change Putin’s behavior will probably be disappointed .....
If the USA imposes sanctions or tariffs on Russia, then
Russia should respond in kind. I'm in favour of tariffs, as
I've noted, since I feel a country should produce its own
stuff when it can, even if that means that billionaires have
to pay more wages to its own country's peasants than
they would have to pay if they could make use of foreign
peasants so desperate they'll work for almost no pay.
As to sanctions, it wouldn't work for two countries to
sanction the same things from each other. If Russia
doesn't have anything the USA wants, which may be the
case for all I know, then I guess Russia can't respond in
kind.
I like tariffs, because they do something worthwhile
IMV, but sanctions just sounds like something a bunch of
tipping over the Monopoly board, or picking up their
marbles and going home. If tariffs are imposed for the
same reason as sanctions though, then IMV they're
just as spoiled-rotten as sanctions, since nobody
benefits.
I can't figure out how tariffs work and who gets the extra money. If China sells us a product for a dollar and there is a 10% tariff, who gets the extra 10 cents and who pays it?
The US government gets it, which in an ideal world (ha-ha!)
would mean that taxes could be reduced for the Middle Class.
(Who cares about the rich? the "real" taxes they pay could triple
and they'd still be rich.) The items that were tariffed would
then have to be made in the USA, which would increase the
price but also provide good jobs for non-billionaires, as long
as 98% of the profits didn't go to the rich - We need UNIONS
to put a stop to that, or that's the way it will stay.
The ham-handed way that the Trump administration is implementing tariffs
is simply providing proof of what conservatives have been claiming - it
is producing a trade war. The Chinese are being very clever in
responding with tariffs against companies that are in states that
supported Trump. This is all very dangerous and Trump doesn't seem to
have a clue.
I'm coming around to the opinion that it was a mistake to oppose TPP.
The bottom line is that it would have united Pacific rim countries and
diminished Chinese economic influence in the region. In killing TPP, we
are now seeing China move into the void that we left. That is not a
good thing IMV.
There is a lot of false information out there now about how China is
stealing our intellectual property. I say that it is false because it
has primarily been US companies that have spread our intellectual
property into the countries where they have built factories and even
research centers. We used to talk about intellectual property being a
leaky bucket, but we are now seeing companies openly taking intellectual
property into foreign countries as part of doing business. One of the
biggest offenders is now Boeing. Watch China enter the aircraft
industry in the not too distant future.
I am not in the Trump is always right camp, but are you aware that
because of the much lower cost of Chinese steel we have been slowly
closing steel plants for years, and the last ones were believed to
have about 3 years to live. There is a pretty strong argument that we
have a vital national interest in maintaing domestic steel and
aluminum industries. A soy bean farmer can grow something else, but a
shoe factory can't smelt steel.
There is a LOT more to that story. Following WWII, we didn't invest in
upgrading the steel mills while we invested in replacing the steel mills
in war ravaged Japan with modern equipment. We lost the steel mills
because it was cheaper for companies to buy steel from Japan and then
other Asian countries who made the investment. I saw the steel mills
close in Pennsylvania and good ridden! They were a blight on Pittsburgh
and no-one wanted to step up to clean up the mess that they left behind
in the rush to Japan. There was some interest for a while in boutique
mills that specialized in unique alloys. I don't know what happened to
that - I stopped following it years ago. Then, there was Alabama where
my FIL wanted me to go to work after I graduated from college. Forget
about that! Alabama was just one more step to the bottom.
We now have an economy that is much more dependent on steel that we can
purchase elsewhere. In fact, we get very little steel from China. Most
of our steel comes from Canada 16.7%, Brazil 13.2%, South Korea 9.7% and
Mexico 9.4%. Much better that we focus on high value added
manufacturing rather than attempting to subsidize industries that have
shown no interest in locating domestically.
As to aluminum, we have a massive plant on the mainland near here made
possible with very low cost energy. It is heavily automated and doesn't
employ many people (less than 600). We see ships bringing bauxite
through the strait frequently.
"China Churns Out Half The World's Steel, And Other Steelmakers Feel
Pinched"
"China now produces about half of the world's steel. It singlehandedly
churns out as much steel in one year as the entire world did in 2000.
During the same time, the U.S. share of global production has fallen
from 12 percent to 5 percent today"
https://www.npr.org/2018/03/08/591637097/china-churns-out-half-the-worlds-steel-and-other-steelmakers-feel-pinched
"Robert Scott, an economist with the Economic Policy Institute, said
foreign aluminum imports threatened the entire U.S. industry which was
hanging on “only by a thread” after a prolonged and steady decline in
aluminum prices. The threat was driven by growth of excess capacity
and overproduction in China, which had increased by nearly 1,500
percent between 2000 and 2017, he said. "
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-aluminium/china-pushes-back-as-u-s-aluminum-industry-urges-crackdown-on-imports-idUSKBN19D2EU
This is not happening by accident Google "made in china 2025"
And it's not just steel and aluminum.
"China’s Next Target: U.S. Microchip Hegemony"
https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-next-target-u-s-microchip-hegemony-1501168303
"China's Tsinghua to build $30 billion chip factory"
http://www.dw.com/en/chinas-tsinghua-to-build-30-billion-chip-factory/a-37205299
You seem alarmed, but this is a sequence of economic activity that we
have seen in Japan, then Korea, India, Indonesia, and now China. With
the assistance of American companies, they enter a market at the low
value added end and use cheap labor and permissive environmental
constraints to compete against domestic companies. Consider how Japan
went up the learning curve from "cheap Japanese electronics," a comment
that I heard from a pawnbroker when I attempted to pawn my radio when I
was in college, to become the world leader in advanced electronics. I
visited Korea not long before I retired and saw the row of semiconductor
manufacturing facilities that dramatically illustrated their strategic
progress in capturing market share until they could dismiss their
American partners. China is doing exactly the same thing. Are you
surprised?

Do you really believe that tariffs will help? If so, you have changed
your tune since we last argued about tar
b***@gmail.com
2018-04-09 03:52:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
I can't figure out how tariffs work and who gets the extra money. If China sells us a product for a dollar and there is a 10% tariff, who gets the extra 10 cents and who pays it?> >
The US government gets it, which in an ideal world (ha-ha!)
would mean that taxes could be reduced for the Middle Class.
(Who cares about the rich? the "real" taxes they pay could triple
and they'd still be rich.) The items that were tariffed would
then have to be made in the USA, which would increase the
price but also provide good jobs for non-billionaires, as long
as 98% of the profits didn't go to the rich - We need UNIONS
to put a stop to that, or that's the way it will stay.
So tariffs are just a sales tax. Why don't they just call it what it is instead of the fancy name tariff to confuse everybody? Don't politicians like the word tax? I guess the word tax is not good for their future job security. All they worry about is how to win the next election.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-04-09 05:26:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by rumpelstiltskin
I can't figure out how tariffs work and who gets the extra money. If China sells us a product for a dollar and there is a 10% tariff, who gets the extra 10 cents and who pays it?> >
The US government gets it, which in an ideal world (ha-ha!)
would mean that taxes could be reduced for the Middle Class.
(Who cares about the rich? the "real" taxes they pay could triple
and they'd still be rich.) The items that were tariffed would
then have to be made in the USA, which would increase the
price but also provide good jobs for non-billionaires, as long
as 98% of the profits didn't go to the rich - We need UNIONS
to put a stop to that, or that's the way it will stay.
So tariffs are just a sales tax. Why don't they just call it what it is instead of the fancy name tariff to confuse everybody? Don't politicians like the word tax? I guess the word tax is not good for their future job security. All they worry about is how to win the next election.
Tariffs have a specific purpose that justifies a different name,
IMV. That purpose is to encourage the growth of industries in
one's own country, making or refining products for which one
would otherwise have to depend on trade with foreigners, a
situation that often becomes dicey. Self-sufficiency should
always be promoted when possible, IMV.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-04-09 05:49:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
I can't figure out how tariffs work and who gets the extra
money. If China sells us a product for a dollar and there is a
10% tariff, who gets the extra 10 cents and who pays it?> >
The US government gets it, which in an ideal world (ha-ha!) would
mean that taxes could be reduced for the Middle Class. (Who cares
about the rich? the "real" taxes they pay could triple and
they'd still be rich.) The items that were tariffed would then
have to be made in the USA, which would increase the price but
also provide good jobs for non-billionaires, as long as 98% of
the profits didn't go to the rich - We need UNIONS to put a stop
to that, or that's the way it will stay.
So tariffs are just a sales tax. Why don't they just call it what
it is instead of the fancy name tariff to confuse everybody? Don't
politicians like the word tax? I guess the word tax is not good for
their future job security. All they worry about is how to win the
next election.
Tariffs have a specific purpose that justifies a different name, IMV.
That purpose is to encourage the growth of industries in one's own
country, making or refining products for which one would otherwise
have to depend on trade with foreigners, a situation that often
becomes dicey. Self-sufficiency should always be promoted when
possible, IMV.
Is it a good idea to encourage the growth of one industry at the expense
of a reduction in another that depends on consumers outside the USA?
islander
2018-04-09 14:41:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by rumpelstiltskin
I can't figure out how tariffs work and who gets the extra money. If China sells us a product for a dollar and there is a 10% tariff, who gets the extra 10 cents and who pays it?> >
The US government gets it, which in an ideal world (ha-ha!)
would mean that taxes could be reduced for the Middle Class.
(Who cares about the rich? the "real" taxes they pay could triple
and they'd still be rich.) The items that were tariffed would
then have to be made in the USA, which would increase the
price but also provide good jobs for non-billionaires, as long
as 98% of the profits didn't go to the rich - We need UNIONS
to put a stop to that, or that's the way it will stay.
So tariffs are just a sales tax. Why don't they just call it what it is instead of the fancy name tariff to confuse everybody? Don't politicians like the word tax? I guess the word tax is not good for their future job security. All they worry about is how to win the next election.
Tariffs have a specific purpose that justifies a different name,
IMV. That purpose is to encourage the growth of industries in
one's own country, making or refining products for which one
would otherwise have to depend on trade with foreigners, a
situation that often becomes dicey. Self-sufficiency should
always be promoted when possible, IMV.
The question is how to build self-sufficiency. One of my favorite books
is *The Economy of Cities* by Jane Jacobs, published in 1970. While she
describes economic development in cities, her ideas apply to nations as
well, IMV. She argues for methods of import replacement rather than
building barriers. A compelling argument. I recommend it.

mg
2018-04-08 03:45:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-moral-case-for-sanctions-against-russia?mbid=nl_180407_Daily&CNDID=48165278&spMailingID=13269525&spUserID=MTc4MTIyNTE0OTM5S0&spJobID=1380562238&spReportId=MTM4MDU2MjIzOAS2
A second category of sanction concerns trade and economic relations. These can be thought of as either strategic or punitive. The Obama Administration imposed these kinds of broad sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and framed them as strategic measures aimed at pressuring Vladimir Putin to change his behavior. John Bolton, the incoming national-security adviser, meanwhile, has made it clear that he views sanctions a punishment—he has tweeted and spoken about the need to exact a price from Russia in response to “behavior you don’t accept.” Different as the Obama-era and Trump-era attitudes may seem, they both stem from the same paternalistic assumption that Russia can be coerced or frightened into behaving differently. There is, however, no evidence for this: Russia’s response to sanctions has consistently ranged from indifference to escalation—including imposing counter-sanctions that cause even further economic pain among the Russian population. Indeed, the very
idea that economic hardship undermines Putin’s rule is erroneous. Hard times can be good for autocracies, and Putin has masterfully used economic resentment to mobilize popular support.
<snip>

I think the US gets so carried away with punishing people who block
their illegal plans for regime change that they wind up killing a lot
of innocent civilians, including women and children. Here are some
articles that describe what happened in Syria:

-----------

OCTOBER 24, 2016, Beirut

US-led Sanctions Targeting Syria Risk Adjudication as War Crimes

by FRANKLIN LAMB FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

As many of us would agree, the continuing conflict in Syria has
created a devastating humanitarian crisis: the magnitude of
humanitarian needs is overwhelming in all parts of the country and
affects the region and beyond. The Syrian conflict has become the
world’s largest humanitarian crisis since World War II, the estimated
number of people in need of the protection of International
Humanitarian Law is approximately 14 million, more than two-thirds of
Syria’s pre-war population. Of these, more than 6 million are hard to
reach 16 besieged, areas, and over 7 million people are internally
displaced. António Guterres, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees,
recently described the humanitarian situation in Syria as “the great
tragedy of this century”. It continues to fuel a combustible
environment, which has contributed to the refugee and migration crisis
as well as to the rise of evermore anti-government rebels groups
including extremists affiliated with, if not directly a part of, the
so-called Islamic State (IS) and Fatah al-Sham.

At an emergency session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on
Friday, human rights chief Zeid Raad al-Hussein warned that “crimes of
historic proportions” were being committed in the east of the city and
elsewhere in Syria. . . ."
https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/24/us-led-sanctions-targeting-syria-risk-adjudication-as-war-crimes/

----

"US and EU Sanctions are Punishing Ordinary Syrians and Crippling Aid
Work, UN Report Reveals

By Rania Khalek Global Research, September 29, 2016
The Intercept 28 September 2016

Internal United Nations assessments obtained by The Intercept reveal
that U.S. and European sanctions are punishing ordinary Syrians and
crippling aid work during the largest humanitarian emergency since
World War II. . . .

In a 40-page internal assessment commissioned to analyze the
humanitarian impact of the sanctions, the U.N. describes the U.S. and
EU measures as “some of the most complicated and far-reaching
sanctions regimes ever imposed.” Detailing a complex system of
“unpredictable and time-consuming” financial restrictions and
licensing requirements, the report finds that U.S. sanctions are
exceptionally harsh “regarding provision of humanitarian aid.” [. . .]

Trade restrictions on Syria are even more convoluted. Items that
contain 10 percent or more of U.S. content, including medical devices,
are banned from export to Syria. Aid groups wishing to bypass this
rule have to apply for a special license, but the licensing
bureaucracy is a nightmare to navigate, often requiring expensive
lawyers that cost far more than the items being exported. . . .

An internal U.N. email obtained by The Intercept also faults U.S. and
EU sanctions for contributing to food shortages and deteriorations in
health care. The August email from a key U.N. official warned that
sanctions had contributed to a doubling in fuel prices in 18 months
and a 40 percent drop in wheat production since 2010, causing the
price of wheat flour to soar by 300 percent and rice by 650 percent.
The email went on to cite sanctions as a “principal factor” in the
erosion of Syria’s health care system. Medicine-producing factories
that haven’t been completely destroyed by the fighting have been
forced to close because of sanctions-related restrictions on raw
materials and foreign currency, the email said.

As one NGO worker in Damascus told The Intercept, there are cars,
buses, water systems, and power stations that are in serious need of
repair all across the country, but it takes months to procure spare
parts and there’s no time to wait. So aid groups opt for cheap Chinese
options or big suppliers that have the proper licensing, but the big
suppliers can charge as much as they want. If the price is
unaffordable, systems break down and more and more people die from
dirty water, preventable diseases, and a reduced quality of life. . .
."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-and-eu-sanctions-are-punishing-ordinary-syrians-and-crippling-aid-work-un-report-reveals/5548438
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3114567/Study-on-Humanitarian-Impact-of-Syria-Related.pdf

---

". . .Others, however, smell opportunity amid the chaos. War
profiteers have carved out a thriving black market by circumventing
the sanctions regime, making millions by importing and selling
much-desired goods ranging from Kit Kat bars to Cuban cigars. By
amassing such profit and power, they’ve come to exact an immense
degree of control over the lives of Syrians living in
government-controlled areas.


The rise of the black-market kings began soon after April 2011, a
month into the Syrian uprising, when President Barack Obama imposed,
via executive order, the first of four sets of economic sanctions on
Syria. According to the Obama administration, these measures were
aimed at punishing President Bashar al-Assad’s human-rights abuses by
suffocating the Syrian economy, sundering its access to essential
goods like medications and fuel, and blocking bank transfers. They set
off a destructive ripple throughout Syria, further distorting an
economy that would soon be ravaged by the escalating conflict.

These distortions have hit everything from the energy sector to the
salaries of ordinary people. According to the World Bank, oil exports
have declined from $4.7 billion in 2011 to $0.14 billion by 2015.
Every day, dozens of cars queue up for hours outside gas stations,
where fuel prices have shot up 15-fold since 2011 due to shortages. As
Syria’s foreign reserves dwindled, its currency began to depreciate,
falling from 47 liras to the dollar before the war began in 2011 to
about 520 liras to the dollar today.

To put all this into context: In 2010, the average worker in Damascus
received a minimum of 11,000 liras a month—approximately $220. Today,
if he’s lucky, he may receive up to 26,500 liras, approximately $53.
The average monthly cost of living for a Syrian family of five,
meanwhile, is 196,000 liras, or about $380; in Damascus it is around
220,000 liras, roughly the equivalent of $425."
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/10/syria-war-economy-damascus-assad/502304/
Loading...