SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
U.S. bans transactions with Venezuela's digital currency
President Donald Trump on Monday signed an executive order barring any U.S.-based financial transactions involving Venezuela's new petro cryptocurrency, as U.S. officials warned that it was a "scam" by President Nicolas Maduro's government to further undermine democracy in the OPEC country.
"The 'petro' is a desperate effort by a corrupt regime to defraud international investors," a senior U.S. administration official told reporters, strongly warning that any transactions in the petro digital currency would violate U.S. sanctions. "Investing in the 'petro' should be viewed as directly supporting this dictatorship and its attempts to undermine the democratic order in Venezuela," the official added.
Trump's order bars "all transactions related to, provision of financing for, and other dealings in, by a United States person or within the United States, any digital currency, digital coin, or digital token," issued by Venezuela's government since Jan. 9, the White House said in a statement.
Also at the New York Times.
Previously: Enter the "Petro": Venezuela to Launch Oil-Backed Cryptocurrency
(Score: 5, Touché) by idiot_king on Wednesday March 21 2018, @04:37AM (24 children)
No, it IS capitalism because it is using economic pressure against an enemy in an especially destructive manner.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 21 2018, @04:55AM (22 children)
Clearly, that is not the case; clearly, your point is ridiculous.
Capitalism is the philosophy that every disputed resource must be turned into capital; that is, every disputed resource must assigned a well-defined owner such that there is no more dispute. Voluntary interaction implies Capitalism, and Capitalism implies voluntary interaction.
Trump's has just declared himself the owner of the resources that 100s of millions of people thought was their own capital; this unilateral re-appropriation of ownership is undoubtedly in dispute—not only is Trump's action a failure to meet the demands of Capitalism, but it is indeed an explicit violation of Capitalism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 21 2018, @05:14AM (5 children)
One description I heard for USSR is that it was State Capitalism. And it seems it was Lenin thing, not just random meme.
https://libcom.org/forums/theory/lenin-acknowledging-intentional-implementation-state-capitalism-ussr-23032011 [libcom.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivism [wikipedia.org] is also an interesting read, at least once you realize the phrase "Critiques of productivism center primarily on the limits to growth posed by a finite planet" ignore that current systems don't seem to really care about limits, and even less so, about long term.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 21 2018, @07:01AM (4 children)
(Score: 2) by legont on Wednesday March 21 2018, @06:14PM (3 children)
How about crony capitalism?
But back to the point, here is the receipt described in details many years ago and mostly followed by every capitalists state:
subsidies
distribution of monopoly rights
workers rights
government-sponsored industrial espionage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Plan_of_the_English_Commerce [wikipedia.org]
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 21 2018, @08:26PM
If you are using the Men-with-Guns to impose your will (and thereby funnel resources into the control of you cronies), then that cannot possibly be capitalism.
Why, then, do you insist on shoehorning the word "capitalism" in there? WHY?!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 21 2018, @08:48PM (1 child)
And I don't agree on those traits as being common to capitalist systems. For example, the great prevalence of anti-trust laws indicates to me instead a firm bias against monopoly formation. Subsidies, tariffs, and other forms of protectionism have gone down greatly with the advent of the global free trade movement. It's interesting how the originator of the list claiming that subsidies are a part of capitalist systems happens to be decrying the capitalist movement that aims to greatly reduce those barriers to trade.
Worker rights is a dubious addition to this list. Most countries transition to a capitalist system via a phase with low worker rights (US, Europe, Japan, China, etc).
As to government industrial espionage? So what? It's an arm's race. Once one side does it, everyone has to participate just to defend themselves.
It's worth noting also that absolutely none of these are particular to capitalist systems and were common to other sorts of organizations in the past.
I currently can't find a full length PDF of Defoe's book, but I bet it has something to say about immigration restriction, common written language, and perhaps even class or ethnic segregation. It also describes a human system - does that mean that extraterrestrial aliens can't possibly have a capitalist system? Just because one sees traits (real or imagined) doesn't mean that these are traits of capitalism.
(Score: 2) by legont on Wednesday March 21 2018, @11:10PM
Well, I have read the book. It has many more plan points that are really controversial nowadays, but they fit very well with what say China, Korea and Russia are doing.
Another example... the US had the highest tariffs in the world while in developing stage (and France had the lowest, which ended badly - revolutions and such)
The bottom line of my capitalists believes is that only a very rich country can afford freedom. One that is behind has to be limit it. Even more, freedom gives an advantage to a more developed country.
Here is a good summary of the view https://www.amazon.com/Kicking-Away-Ladder-Development-Perspective/dp/1843310279 [amazon.com]
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 21 2018, @07:00AM
Have you not read the definition of capitalism????
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 21 2018, @07:03AM (14 children)
The obvious rebuttal is that no, he hasn't done that. It might have added a slight cost to capital transactions between US and Venezuelan parties (the Petros would first be converted to a currency that is honored, or perhaps the executive order can merely be ignored), but it hasn't prevented the transaction.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 21 2018, @02:57PM (13 children)
I suppose you would have argued that Uncle Sam never prevented people from drinking beer, only added cost to doing so; you just had to fly to Europe if you wanted a pint during PROHIBITION (it's in the name), amirite?
Your comments are only ever insightful in that they are a good case study in fallacious thinking—endless examples of how intelligent people can delude themselves by all manner of rationalization.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Wednesday March 21 2018, @03:45PM (12 children)
I can sit here in los estados unidos and trade in assets converted to/from El Petro Venezolano, really no need to fly to europe. I can probably do it in my pajamas in front of a laptop. Might do some of that pretty soon, in fact, given that this announcement will probably have a temporary negative effect on the value of El Petro and thus make this a good time to "buy".
I am not saying "khallow is a genius" (that's not at issue here), merely pointing out that his point is a valid one, and yours isn't.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 21 2018, @04:01PM (5 children)
I have no idea why you think you've said anything useful.
You've neither rebutted the other AC's point nor bolstered khallow's "point". You also haven't raised any point of your own, except for a straw man argument that suggests you don't understand what the other AC is saying.
It's very strange. Very strange.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 21 2018, @06:16PM (4 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 21 2018, @08:24PM (3 children)
It's totally irrelevant that you can brew beer in the dark secrecy of your basement. It's still the case that Uncle Sam outlawed Beer.
There is a fundamental dispute over ownership of some resources; Uncle Sam has unilaterally declared Himself the owner of said resources, against the will of people who thought those resources were their capital.* That is not only a failure to follow Capitalism, but it's also an explicit breach of Capitalism.
* These resources include the U.S. dollars that people have; Trump has commandeered some rights over the usage of those dollars.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 21 2018, @08:53PM (2 children)
The US didn't similarly outlaw the trade of Petros (which let us note, an executive order (EO) is not a law!), but rather that the US side can't handle the Petros directly. It remains not only easy, but legal to trade in many other currencies like the dollar and Euro to which those Petros can be easily converted by another party not subject to this EO.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 21 2018, @09:26PM (1 child)
"That's not Law!" Why do you always take this dumb position?
When people say that an EO is "not" law, that is just shorthand for saying than EO can be overturned by any President and does not require the much more complicated deliberative process of Congress.
Yet, an EO is written within the framework established by law; it has the full force of law. An EO is just the President writing into the blank space that Congress has left for that purpose. It's the law of the fucking land.
In any case, that's all irrelevant (as usual), because the point remains that such an EO is an example of anti-Capitalism.
It's not at all clear that it would be considered by the Executive branch to be perfectly legal to transact via intermediaries who are not subject to the EO; indeed, history has shown that such "structuring" is considered to be highly illegal.
Such restrictions tend to be transitive.
Your position is just stupid. Give it up.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 22 2018, @12:04AM
Truth is an absolute defense against accusations of stupidity. The law in question was passed by Congress [akingump.com]. The EO merely interprets that law in a straightforward manner.
As I noted earlier, a very easy to circumvent point which means it is not significantly anti-anything.
And you have to yet to mention why that would be "structuring". Look, we both know that one can "consider" anything to be anything. But why will that hold up in the courts?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 21 2018, @04:04PM (5 children)
They both have points, though khallow is the stupider one. Obviously people can break the law, that doesn't change the actions of the US.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 21 2018, @05:11PM (4 children)
But wait, the other party merely needs to convert those Petros into some other currency, like dollars, Euros, or even bitcoins, and then the transaction may proceed. It adds some cost to the transaction from the cost of the conversion, but that's it.
I think the only thing stupid about that is not thinking about how easy it would be to do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 21 2018, @05:36PM (3 children)
You should have just told us directly that you have no idea what's going on here; it would have saved us all a bunch of time.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 21 2018, @06:15PM (2 children)
Why are you still typing? I explained my reasoning adequately last post. There's nothing you can add at this point that is relevant. Being territorial is the way of animals not rational men.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 21 2018, @09:49PM (1 child)
Part of the fun with posting AC is seeing other people take up the argument, I was not "still typing". You seem incapable of understanding the issue of legality here, probably because you don't want to fully confront the fact that Trump is an authoritarian dickbag destroying the US.
As for whining, that seems to be your purview. I called your point stupid and you're the one doing mental gymnastics to try and salvage your dignity.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 22 2018, @12:04AM
Maybe that's true, maybe it's not.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by FatPhil on Wednesday March 21 2018, @08:36AM
However, at every other zoom level it doesn't work, as for a vast chunk of the marketplace (viz. the USA) this is clearly not a free market with price discovery - this is authoritarian market manipilation.
I don't hold the majority of the Venezuelans responsible for the long-term and systemic corruption that's wracked their nation, and if the petro can help them turn their natural resources into something that benefits the masses, then I'm all for it. Were this enforced restriction of trade between the US and Venezuela to harm the US economy too (Venezuela is the US's 4th/5th biggest source for imported oil, 6% of the total, if they lose access to that, they'll be emptying their reserves a whole lot quicker, which will cost them in the future), then the schadenfreude lobe of my brain will fire a merry blip.
What am I saying?!?!? Of course, probably what will happen is that the CIA will instigate a bloody coup, and install a system even more corrupt in order to help it rape the gold and oil reserves. Gotta get that revolution fomenting a little bit more first though. Plenty of time to sit back and relax with a cup of coffee while that happens: https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-venezuela-cafe-con-leche-index/
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves