• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

Russian Sanction Effects | 2022

WarEconomist said:
I disagree with TCharley300 on the current situation, but he has the right of it on the outcome of an economic collapse; anyone who thinks precious metals would retain value after an economic collapse is delusional.
I wrote an entire long op-ed article on this once that some people really didn't like.
The summary: any situation that could legitimately threaten us with economic collapse is not one where "society" survives.
The Western economy isn't going to fall apart tomorrow. The only things that could fold it are inherently things that disrupt the very existence of Western society.
We are not talking "baby formula shortage" or "record high inflation that actually isn't that high." We're talking bioweapons being released and nukes dropped.
Those situations reduce daily life to a fight for survival. We are talking medieval-or-worse. People are not going to trade away their very scarce survival needs to you for a shiny piece of metal - especially when the lawlessness that would accompany this scenario would let them just shank or shoot you for it if they really want it.
Even in those times when precious metals were a distinct part of day-to-day trade, there were still issues of confidence in the currency. The entire reason we started stamping coins was so that you had an idea where the coin came from and how much you could trust its content. And even then, this only occurred in relatively developed economies - the village of farmers out in the sticks wasn't doing day-to-day business in gold ingots.

The gold standard isn't coming back. It isn't even a good one to begin with; it has a lot of problems that people who oppose the current financial system conveniently overlook.
At best, if everything went to hell, we'd probably end up adopting ammunition as currency.
Click to expand...
Metals are useful as an investment medium.
I am only maintaining that gold and silver as a currency replacement in a complete economic collapse of the world economies.
It would be a known
 
DarkNoon said:
There is a reason why nations have stopped backing their currency with gold. Because giving a false sense of value to currency has disastrous consequences which leads to dramatic and sudden value adjustments.
Click to expand...
It’s all based on faith and trust in the government to administer their currency be it a fiat or gold backed. (Do they actually know what they are doing or do they really have the gold they claim to have)
Just like the stock market. Is the business growing their growth on sound business practices and managing its returns and development on practices that work.

Fractional reserve banking and non gold banking was created not because gold backing didn’t work. They did it to be able to increase and decrease the money supply to guard against wild economic swings. Some speculate this only sets the economy up for major economic slumps because papered over’ed slumps or too hot of growth don’t allow for naturally economic corrections. I would say that today most don’t even know what normal economic corrections are.

It is also used to be able it inject money into the economies to encourage growth in areas where there is opportunities for growth. The creation of wealth where it might not have ever happened.
It is the abuses of this practice that endangers fiduciary trust in the economy.
Everyone remembers the mismanagement and distrust of the 70’s. There was no logical reason for the recession of the 70’s except for bad treasury policies and asinine government regulations and policies.

Remember them tell farmers to plow up their fence rows and pastures, we are going to feed the world because the world is starving. Then they dumped cheap money into the loan market.
Whale at the same time carter making every miss step that could be made in the Middle East bringing about the oil embargo.
It’s no wonder people think the gov is out to get them.
 
Bloomberg reports that Europe-based sanctions are at a point of stalling in terms of future sanctions beyond current state:

Europe’s Move Against Putin’s Oil May Be Its Last for a While
"In the hardest-hitting measure targeting Russia’s lucrative energy sector, the government chiefs agreed to pursue a ban on the purchase of seaborne oil and petroleum products from Russia, with a temporary exemption for pipeline crude. While the details must still be hashed out, the deal prepares the ground for a sixth package of sanctions to punish President Vladimir Putin for invading Ukraine.
“Yesterday proved that the EU is able to maintain unity in the face of Russian aggression,” Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala told reporters Tuesday, the second day of a leaders’ summit in Brussels. “The talks were pragmatic and went faster than expected, which is a strong message for Putin.”
With ambassadors set to discuss the package Wednesday, Latvian Prime Minister Krisjanis Karins said the bloc must push ahead on gas. But he noted the bigger challenge because supplies of the fuel -- on which EU members like Germany are heavily dependent -- are harder to replace. “You can put oil in lorries and move it around easily,” he told Bloomberg TV. “To move gas you need specialized equipment.”
In the weeks that the EU wrangled over oil, Poland and the bloc’s Baltic members argued that until gas is included, sanctions won’t go far enough. But the members are split on discussing this in a next, seventh package, with some leaders seeing quick action unlikely.
“This package is a big step forward, we should pause it right now,” Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo told reporters, calling a gas embargo “way more complicated.”
While Irish Prime Minister Micheal Martin called Tuesday’s late-night agreement a “watershed moment” for the EU’s dependence on Russian energy, he made clear consensus on gas would be harder. Slovenia’s Janez Jansa wished his colleagues “good luck” on finding a solution, while Estonia’s Kaja Kallas, who has been one of the bloc’s strongest advocates for stricter measures against Putin, was also cautious.
“I think that gas has to be in the seventh package,” Kallas said. “But I’m realistic as well I don’t think it will be there.” "
finance.yahoo.com

Europe’s Move Against Putin’s Oil May Be Its Last for a While

(Bloomberg) -- European Union leaders overcame weeks of division to clinch a deal on partially banning Russian oil, but calls to target one of Putin’s other big moneymakers, gas, are opening new rifts in the bloc.Most Read from BloombergReady to Buy a House? Just Wait a Few WeeksSoros’s Money...
finance.yahoo.com finance.yahoo.com
 

Downtown LA gas station charges more than $8 a gallon as prices continue to surge nationwide​

ABC: "DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES (CNS) -- A gas station in downtown Los Angeles was charging more than $8 a gallon on Tuesday as price surges continued across the U.S.. The average price of a gallon of self-serve regular gasoline in Los Angeles County rose to a record Tuesday for the fourth consecutive day, increasing 1 cent to $6.172, its sixth consecutive increase. The average price has risen 8.1 cents over the past six days, including 1 cent Monday, according to figures from the AAA and Oil Price Information Service. It is 7.5 cents more than one week ago, 35.4 cents higher than one month ago and $1.945 greater than one year ago. The Orange County average price rose seven-tenths of a cent to its fourth consecutive record, $6.15, its fifth consecutive increase. It has risen 9.1 cents over the past five days, including nine-tenths of a cent Monday. The Los Angeles County average price has increased $1.376 since Russia's invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24 sent shock waves through the oil market that have kept oil costs elevated,'' said Andrew Gross, an AAA national public relations manager. The Orange County average price has increased $1.373."
"The price of a barrel of front month crude on ICE Futures Europe increased $2.04 Monday to settle at $117.60, its highest amount since March 23. Analysts attribute the increase to anticipated increased demand following the weekend comments by Shanghai Vice Mayor Wu Qing that coronavirus-related restrictions would be reduced this week and the expectation of a reduction in supply stemming from the pledge by European Union leaders to impose an oil embargo on Russia."
abc7.com

Downtown LA gas station charges more than $8 a gallon as prices continue to surge nationwide

A gas station in downtown Los Angeles was charging more than $8 a gallon as price surges continued across the U.S.
abc7.com abc7.com
 
REALHumanRights said:

Downtown LA gas station charges more than $8 a gallon as prices continue to surge nationwide​

ABC: "DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES (CNS) -- A gas station in downtown Los Angeles was charging more than $8 a gallon on Tuesday as price surges continued across the U.S.. The average price of a gallon of self-serve regular gasoline in Los Angeles County rose to a record Tuesday for the fourth consecutive day, increasing 1 cent to $6.172, its sixth consecutive increase. The average price has risen 8.1 cents over the past six days, including 1 cent Monday, according to figures from the AAA and Oil Price Information Service. It is 7.5 cents more than one week ago, 35.4 cents higher than one month ago and $1.945 greater than one year ago. The Orange County average price rose seven-tenths of a cent to its fourth consecutive record, $6.15, its fifth consecutive increase. It has risen 9.1 cents over the past five days, including nine-tenths of a cent Monday. The Los Angeles County average price has increased $1.376 since Russia's invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24 sent shock waves through the oil market that have kept oil costs elevated,'' said Andrew Gross, an AAA national public relations manager. The Orange County average price has increased $1.373."
"The price of a barrel of front month crude on ICE Futures Europe increased $2.04 Monday to settle at $117.60, its highest amount since March 23. Analysts attribute the increase to anticipated increased demand following the weekend comments by Shanghai Vice Mayor Wu Qing that coronavirus-related restrictions would be reduced this week and the expectation of a reduction in supply stemming from the pledge by European Union leaders to impose an oil embargo on Russia."
abc7.com

Downtown LA gas station charges more than $8 a gallon as prices continue to surge nationwide

A gas station in downtown Los Angeles was charging more than $8 a gallon as price surges continued across the U.S.
abc7.com abc7.com
Click to expand...
Yet in light of all this and actively supporting a Russian oil embargo the Biden admin is not renewing drilling leases. Instead they make quips about people should just buy electric cars.
That’s a good over all national defense strategy.
 
CBS News on USA: "In these locations, a gallon of gas costs more than the federal minimum wage"
www.cbsnews.com

In these locations, a gallon of gas costs more than the federal minimum wage

A handful of gas stations are charging $7.25 or more for a gallon of gas as fuel prices hit another record.
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com

Borenstein of Berkeley recently told CBS News that he doesn't foresee $2 or $3 per gallon gas anytime soon. That's because crude oil prices have jumped in the past 12 months, and world demand for fossil fuels is rising even as supply is lagging, he noted. "Even before Russia attacked Ukraine, we were seeing the production of oil lagging. Producers in the United States are reporting they're having a hard time getting workers to come back to the oil fields," Borenstein said. "They're having supply-chain problems with parts and equipment.
 
REALHumanRights said:
UN Human Right Council Adopts Resolution A/HRC/49/L.6 - "on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights."- USA, UK, Poland, Germany, France vote no. Russia votes yes, while still ongoing invasion of Ukraine. No doubt this is about trade issues, but has a broader scope. Russia will no doubt use this as a propaganda tool at some point. Notably, China, India, Russia all agreed on this. Same day as U.S. Deputy National Security Advisor is warning India.

"#HRC49 | Resolution A/HRC/49/L.6 on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights was ADOPTED."
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1509544949972455430

ODS HOME PAGE

Multilingual interface of the UN Official Documents System
documents-dds-ny.un.org

1. Urges all States to stop adopting, maintaining or implementing unilateral coercive measures not in accordance with international law, international humanitarian law, the Charter of the United Nations and the norms and principles governing peaceful relations among States, in particular those of a coercive nature with extraterritorial effects, which create obstacles to trade relations among States, thus impeding the full realization of the rights set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments, in particular the right of individuals and peoples to development;
2. Calls upon States and relevant United Nations agencies to take concrete measures to mitigate the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on humanitarian assistance, which should be delivered in accordance with General Assembly resolution 46/182 of 19 December 1991;
3. Strongly urges all States to refrain from imposing unilateral coercive measures, also urges the removal of such measures, as they are contrary to the Charter and norms and principles governing peaceful relations among States at all levels, and recalls that such measures prevent the full realization of economic and social development of nations while also affecting the full realization of human rights;
4. Urges States to resolve their differences through dialogue and peaceful means, and to avoid the use of economic, political or other measures to coerce another State with regard to the exercise of its sovereign rights;
5. Strongly objects to the extraterritorial nature of those measures which, in addition, threaten the sovereignty of States, and in this context calls upon all States neither to recognize these measures nor to apply them, and to take effective administrative or legislative measures, as appropriate, to counteract the extraterritorial application or effects of unilateral coercive measures;
6. Strongly condemns the continued unilateral application and enforcement by certain powers of such measures as tools of pressure, including political and economic pressure, against any country, particularly against least developed and developing countries, with a view to preventing these countries from exercising their right to decide, of their own free will, their own political, economic and social systems;
7. Expresses its grave concern that any unilateral coercive measure imposed necessarily runs counter to some provisions of the International Bill of Human Rights and peremptory norms of customary international law, and entails adverse consequences for the enjoyment of human rights by innocent people;
8. Expresses its deep concern over the increasing negative effects of unilateral coercive measures on the environment and natural resources leading to serious violations of human rights of targeted populations, and strongly condemns the continued unilateral application of such measures, which result in various environmental transboundary and transgenerational implications for present and future generations;"
9. Expresses its grave concern that, in some countries, the socioeconomic conditions of family members, particularly women and children, are adversely affected by unilateral coercive measures, imposed and maintained contrary to international law and the Charter, that create obstacles to trade relations among States, restrict movement through various means of transport, impede the full realization of social and economic development and hinder the well-being of the population in the affected countries, with particular consequences for women, children, including adolescents, the elderly and persons with disabilities;
10. Reiterates its call upon States that have initiated such measures to commit themselves to their obligations and responsibilities arising from relevant provisions of the international law and human rights instruments to which they are a party by putting an immediate end to such measures;
11. Reaffirms in this context the right of all peoples to self-determination by virtue of which they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their own economic, social and cultural development;
12. Also reaffirms, as enshrined in the Charter, its opposition to any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of a State;
13. Recalls that, according to the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and to the relevant principles and provisions contained in the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, proclaimed by the General Assembly in its resolution 3281 (XXIX) of 12 December 1974, in particular article 32 thereof, no State may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other type of measure to coerce another State in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights and to secure from it advantages of any kind;
14. Reaffirms that essential goods, such as food and medicines, should not be used as tools for political coercion and that under no circumstances should people be deprived of their means of subsistence and development;
15. Underlines the fact that unilateral coercive measures are one of the major obstacles to the implementation of the Declaration on the Right to Development, and in this regard calls upon all States to avoid the unilateral imposition of economic coercive measures and the extraterritorial application of domestic laws that run counter to the principles of free trade and hamper the development of least developed and developing countries;
16. Rejects all attempts to introduce unilateral coercive measures, and the increasing trend in this direction, including through the enactment of laws with extraterritorial application which are not in conformity with international law, and urges the States Members of the United Nations to take fully into account the negative impact of those measures, including through the enactment and extraterritorial application of national laws that are not in conformity with international law in their task concerning the implementation of the right to development;
17. Recognizes that the Declaration of Principles adopted at the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society, held in Geneva in December 2003, strongly urges States to avoid and refrain from any unilateral measure in building the information society;
18. Stresses the need for an impartial and independent mechanism of the United Nations human rights machinery for the victims of unilateral coercive measures to address the issues of remedies and redress, with a view to promoting accountability and legal, equitable, timely and effective remedies and reparations;
19. Urges all special rapporteurs and existing thematic mechanisms of the Human Rights Council in the field of economic, social and cultural rights to pay due attention, within the scope of their respective mandates, to the negative impact and consequences of unilateral coercive measures and to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights in fulfilling his or her mandate;"
Click to expand...
Pretty ironic that these economic “coercive measures” taken by a large number of nations from all over the globe is somehow termed a “unilateral” act. And the this economic coercion is somehow significantly more detrimental to a people “rights” than the invasion of an other nation by a single “unilateral” nation to coerce them with actual violence and death.

Exactly where did the notion come from that all nations are duty bound to engage in trade and commerce with other nations of the world irrespective of differences and disputes.
I agree that it is beneficial for all in the long run to keep trade free and open. But is it a right and duty of the many, or a usurped privilege of despots
 
ZedBoy said:
Once again... Ruble at a 5 year high to USD. So what's really going on?
Click to expand...
It's one of two things--either the ruble is getting stronger, or the dollar is getting weaker. Also, to my understanding, the Ruble is back by gold. When I visited there back in 06, the ruble was 30= one dollar.
 
UY
TCharley300 said:
It's one of two things--either the ruble is getting stronger, or the dollar is getting weaker. Also, to my understanding, the Ruble is back by gold. When I visited there back in 06, the ruble was 30= one dollar.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this is only a 5 year high, not an all time high. I bought when the invasion happened because it was a great opportunity because it was a fear based sell.
 
ZedBoy said:
Once again... Ruble at a 5 year high to USD. So what's really going on?
Click to expand...
yeah in another year or two the ruble might be back to where it was before they invaded and annexed Crimea and Donetsk
 
People who think Russia sanctions “aren’t working” aren’t looking at all the data:
⚡⚡1/ New statistics out on Russian economy!
---
⚡⚡2/ Some data points:

(May 2022 vs May 2021)

Cars: -96.7%
Trucks: -39.3%
ICE motors: -57%
Pass. train wagons: -59.8%
Freight wagons: -51.8%
Fiberglass cables: -80.8%
Fridges: -58.1%
Washing machines: -59.2%
AC electric motors: -49.9%
Elevators: -34.7%
Excavators: -60%
Click to expand...
⚡⚡3/ Retail turnover: Screenshot_20220630-111822_Twitter.jpg
Click to expand...
⚡⚡4/ Retail business confidence:Screenshot_20220630-111930_Twitter.jpg
Click to expand...
⚡⚡5/ Wholesale turnover:Screenshot_20220630-112046_Twitter.jpg
Click to expand...
⚡⚡6/ Industrial producer prices plummeting in May (demand)Screenshot_20220630-112141_Twitter.jpg
Click to expand...
⚡⚡7/ Pensions in real terms in May: -8.2% yoy... Salaries in real terms in April: -7.2% yoyScreenshot_20220630-112912_Twitter.jpg
Click to expand...
⚡⚡8/ Decline of #Russia's population due to Covid (in 2022: also migration balance negative first time)Screenshot_20220630-113316_Twitter.jpg
Click to expand...
Source comes from Russian GOV website:

Доклад "Социально-экономическое положение России"

rosstat.gov.ru rosstat.gov.ru
 
Travis The Dragon said:
A bunch of numbers and stuff all in Russian sure doesn't let me know if sanctions are working or not. What exactly is all of this telling me?
Click to expand...
The graphs should of easily laid it out or if you read it closly (ik it's a lot info laid out) shows a very steep and steady decline of the Russian economy in all aspects.

From consumers, businesses, products, production of products, investments, customer faith, retirement plans, and more are all down across the board shown by factual data with the latest numbers prove sanctions are working.

From 2021 to now 2022 sanctions have really clawed out a lot of the russian economy shown by the hard data above. The source itself is also official and numbers provided are directly from Russian government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top