Sri Lanka is having a textbook currency crisis, triggered by policy mistakes(noahpinion.substack.com)
noahpinion.substack.com
Sri Lanka is having a textbook currency crisis, triggered by policy mistakes
https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/why-sri-lanka-is-having-an-economic
382 comments
The Rajapaksa family gave out jobs based on nepotism not expertise, and weren’t the sharpest knives in the drawer. It is completely insane policy, as was flatly running out of currency before doing anything about it. It will be a long road to recovery. At least they have kicked out the family from the government, and have a pretty solid plan to reverse the authoritarian sections of the constitution put in place by the Rajapaksas a few years ago. And the movement to oust the Rajapaksas has brought the whole populace toghether in a way that Sri Lanka sorely needs, Sinhala, Tamil and Musliam all working together non-violently can only be good.
The immediate problem is that the entire legal order of succession (PM, president, Speaker etc) are Rajapaksa cronies who are busily getting the hell out of Dodge^W Colombo, so it's not at all sure who is going to form or lead the next government.
There are also a lot of unresolved tensions left over from the vicious civil war that devastated the island for decades, so it's sadly possible that things take a turn for the worse.
There are also a lot of unresolved tensions left over from the vicious civil war that devastated the island for decades, so it's sadly possible that things take a turn for the worse.
not just cronies, relatives , even the Speaker is family member.
Are there any neighboring countries which could reasonably assist in establishing a new government?
India, but the two countries have a very complicated and touchy relationship. Sri Lanka's Tamil minority, including the Tamil Tigers, was heavily supported by Tamils in India. However, Tamil Nadu (the Indian state) itself has a fractious relationship and the Tigers repaid India's attempt to send in peacekeepers by assassinating Indian PM Rajiv Gandhi.
Minor correction - Gandhi wasn’t assassinated for sending in peacekeepers. It was for sending in and leaving unchecked a notoriously brutal “peacekeeping” force who terrorized the people they were there to protect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Peace_Keeping_Force#War...
Quite justified in my opinion.
Quite justified in my opinion.
You mean carry out a coup and/or invade?
No, when a government collapses it is not uncommon for a neighboring country to provide structural assistance in establishing a new government.
This only really works with a UN declaration/international support. Having historically friendly ties makes this a better proposition.
This only really works with a UN declaration/international support. Having historically friendly ties makes this a better proposition.
(The original article is very good at providing a beginner's explanation of forex crises, and should be bookmarked for every time someone wants to talk about inflation)
> A country ought to feed its people
This is much harder than it sounds, not just for dense tiny countries like Singapore but for much of Western Europe. The UK hasn't been able to feed its population from native production only since before WW2. I see a Norwegian making the same point in this thread; the proportion of Norway's five million people that could be sustainably fed by fishing, reindeer hunting, and agriculture on the few flat bits of the country is probably very small.
> provide basic services like power and medical facilities on its own
Even harder. Only a superpower could begin to attempt having its own production chain for both of those. Everyone else has to buy from Siemens or Westinghouse, or Pfizer etc.
It sounds like you're saying that only superpowers or mega-countries should exist? Would the EU count as a self-sufficiency unit for this purpose?
(edit: Singapore imports 90% of its food! https://www.sfa.gov.sg/food-farming/singapore-food-supply/th... - not really suprising given that it's an island megacity with a population of 20,000 per square mile)
> A country ought to feed its people
This is much harder than it sounds, not just for dense tiny countries like Singapore but for much of Western Europe. The UK hasn't been able to feed its population from native production only since before WW2. I see a Norwegian making the same point in this thread; the proportion of Norway's five million people that could be sustainably fed by fishing, reindeer hunting, and agriculture on the few flat bits of the country is probably very small.
> provide basic services like power and medical facilities on its own
Even harder. Only a superpower could begin to attempt having its own production chain for both of those. Everyone else has to buy from Siemens or Westinghouse, or Pfizer etc.
It sounds like you're saying that only superpowers or mega-countries should exist? Would the EU count as a self-sufficiency unit for this purpose?
(edit: Singapore imports 90% of its food! https://www.sfa.gov.sg/food-farming/singapore-food-supply/th... - not really suprising given that it's an island megacity with a population of 20,000 per square mile)
Arguably countries are on a logical trajectory to consolidate into economic superblocks, if not in literal than in defacto status.
Gundam 00 comes to mind as an example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Suit_Gundam_00 , one of the main characters is a former child warrior from the then severely economically depressed post-oil 'middle east' region, while each of the three economic superblocks has it's own space elevator connecting to an orbital ring of solar collectors.
Gundam 00 comes to mind as an example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Suit_Gundam_00 , one of the main characters is a former child warrior from the then severely economically depressed post-oil 'middle east' region, while each of the three economic superblocks has it's own space elevator connecting to an orbital ring of solar collectors.
I mean, Gundam 00 is cool and all, but it's from 2007 or so.
Nineteen Eighty-Four (from 1949) literally has Oceania, Eurasia, Eastasia :-)
Nineteen Eighty-Four (from 1949) literally has Oceania, Eurasia, Eastasia :-)
I read that book (when forced to while in school), and I mostly only remember Big Brother and that dystopias suck. Also I would take everything stated about everyplace, inside the fictional regime or not, with a huge grain of salt. I probably did at the time, which is why the specific world state just never stuck with me.
> The UK hasn't been able to feed its population from native production only since before WW2.
What does this mean though?
That the UK does not generate enough calories to meet a certain minimum baseline? That the UK does not generate enough calories to meet the current consumption? That the UK eats things that they do not grow?
What does this mean though?
That the UK does not generate enough calories to meet a certain minimum baseline? That the UK does not generate enough calories to meet the current consumption? That the UK eats things that they do not grow?
The UK has a whole government department to answer your questions:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/united-kingdom-food...
Result: The UK grows enough wheat alone to give enough calories to support its population, with plenty to spare. It also produces all the major food groups in quite large quantities. If cut off from the world, the UK people wouldn't starve, but they might have to switch out their caviar for something else.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/united-kingdom-food...
Result: The UK grows enough wheat alone to give enough calories to support its population, with plenty to spare. It also produces all the major food groups in quite large quantities. If cut off from the world, the UK people wouldn't starve, but they might have to switch out their caviar for something else.
That's quite an impressive report and it's good to see someone's taking this seriously, even if they might end up ignored by whoever the agriculture secretary of the day is.
> but they might have to switch out their caviar for something else
That's frivolous: the report talks about meeting 100% of caloric requirements from grain in an emergency scenario. The mostly-bread diet would be comparable or worse than WW2 rationing, it's not just luxuries that would be impacted.
For purposes of comparison with Sri Lanka, I also note: "The UK imports roughly 50% of its ammonium nitrate, with 75% of imports for fertiliser use coming from the EU (primarily from Lithuania, Poland, and the Netherlands) and the remaining 25% from Georgia and Russia."
> but they might have to switch out their caviar for something else
That's frivolous: the report talks about meeting 100% of caloric requirements from grain in an emergency scenario. The mostly-bread diet would be comparable or worse than WW2 rationing, it's not just luxuries that would be impacted.
For purposes of comparison with Sri Lanka, I also note: "The UK imports roughly 50% of its ammonium nitrate, with 75% of imports for fertiliser use coming from the EU (primarily from Lithuania, Poland, and the Netherlands) and the remaining 25% from Georgia and Russia."
> The mostly-bread diet
See the section on meat, dairy, fruits, vegetables, etc... It would be a decent diet.
And obviously within a year or so, land use could be adjusted to make it an even better diet.
See the section on meat, dairy, fruits, vegetables, etc... It would be a decent diet.
And obviously within a year or so, land use could be adjusted to make it an even better diet.
The UK produces a surplus of animal shit; I don't understand why it isn't all being used to fertilize the ground.
For that matter, I don't understand why human poo is treated as pollution, rather than being composted.
For that matter, I don't understand why human poo is treated as pollution, rather than being composted.
>For that matter, I don't understand why human poo is treated as pollution, rather than being composted.
Because human waste contains shigella bacteria which would be disastrous if runoff makes it to the water supply.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shigella
Because human waste contains shigella bacteria which would be disastrous if runoff makes it to the water supply.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shigella
"Because human waste contains shigella bacteria..." we wouldn't put human waste directly on the land. We currently do spread treated human waste that has been digested on land, commonly called biosolids.
https://www.epa.gov/biosolids/basic-information-about-biosol...
https://www.epa.gov/biosolids/basic-information-about-biosol...
Water treatment plants let quite a lot of biological contamination through... If you use that to water crops that people eat, you get quite a nice disease spreading loop...
Specifically, no water treatment process today tests for viruses in treated water, and there are plenty of viruses that can survive sitting in a bubble tank for a few hours..
Boiling the water for 10 minutes first would satisfy me that very little biological contamination can make it out, but it is a huge amount of energy required to boil all the wastewater.
Specifically, no water treatment process today tests for viruses in treated water, and there are plenty of viruses that can survive sitting in a bubble tank for a few hours..
Boiling the water for 10 minutes first would satisfy me that very little biological contamination can make it out, but it is a huge amount of energy required to boil all the wastewater.
The water isn't being put on soil for crops. The digested sludge is what is used. It is being done already and there are processes in place.
https://www.epa.gov/biosolids/basic-information-about-biosol...
https://www.epa.gov/biosolids/basic-information-about-biosol...
Not in Europe it isn't...
In the USA, food poisoning rates are far higher than Europe, and part of that is probably the biosludge...
In the USA, food poisoning rates are far higher than Europe, and part of that is probably the biosludge...
Probably not, but can be a source. Which is why it is regulated and steps are taken to a) reduce E. coli in the sludge and b) apply it at certain times, etc. per the EPA link.
https://extension.psu.edu/use-of-biosolids-in-crop-productio...
Treatment methods eliminate more than 95% of the pathogens in sewage sludge; the risk of disease from those that remain in biosolids is short-term because most of them do not survive beyond 30 days in the soil environment. In addition to requiring pathogen reduction treatment, Pennsylvania's biosolids regulations contain several risk reduction and management requirements that reduce the likelihood of disease to very low levels. These requirements include:
treatment and management practices to reduce the attraction of disease vectors and thus the probability that pathogens would be transferred from biosolids to humans or animals application setback requirements from occupied dwellings and from water sources minimum time requirements from biosolids application to harvest, ranging from 30 days for forage and feed crops to 38 months for some food crops no grazing allowed within 30 days of biosolids application to pastures If carefully followed, these requirements make the risk of disease from land-applied biosolids similar to or lower than that of land-applied manures. In fact, there are no documented cases of human or animal diseases being contracted from land-applied biosolids.
https://extension.colostate.edu/topic-areas/nutrition-food-s...
Changes in microorganisms have undoubtedly contributed to this increase, as have changes in growing, harvesting, distribution, processing and consumption practices. Listeria monocytogenes, Clostridium botulinum and Bacillus cereus are naturally present in some soils. Their presence on fresh produce is not uncommon. Salmonella, E. coli O157:H7, Campylobacter jejuni, Vibrio cholerae, parasites and viruses can contaminate produce through raw or improperly composted manure, irrigation water containing untreated sewage or manure, and contaminated wash water. Contact with mammals, reptiles, fowl, insects and unpasteurized animal products are other sources of contamination.
Animal manure is a far more common source.
https://extension.psu.edu/use-of-biosolids-in-crop-productio...
Treatment methods eliminate more than 95% of the pathogens in sewage sludge; the risk of disease from those that remain in biosolids is short-term because most of them do not survive beyond 30 days in the soil environment. In addition to requiring pathogen reduction treatment, Pennsylvania's biosolids regulations contain several risk reduction and management requirements that reduce the likelihood of disease to very low levels. These requirements include:
treatment and management practices to reduce the attraction of disease vectors and thus the probability that pathogens would be transferred from biosolids to humans or animals application setback requirements from occupied dwellings and from water sources minimum time requirements from biosolids application to harvest, ranging from 30 days for forage and feed crops to 38 months for some food crops no grazing allowed within 30 days of biosolids application to pastures If carefully followed, these requirements make the risk of disease from land-applied biosolids similar to or lower than that of land-applied manures. In fact, there are no documented cases of human or animal diseases being contracted from land-applied biosolids.
https://extension.colostate.edu/topic-areas/nutrition-food-s...
Changes in microorganisms have undoubtedly contributed to this increase, as have changes in growing, harvesting, distribution, processing and consumption practices. Listeria monocytogenes, Clostridium botulinum and Bacillus cereus are naturally present in some soils. Their presence on fresh produce is not uncommon. Salmonella, E. coli O157:H7, Campylobacter jejuni, Vibrio cholerae, parasites and viruses can contaminate produce through raw or improperly composted manure, irrigation water containing untreated sewage or manure, and contaminated wash water. Contact with mammals, reptiles, fowl, insects and unpasteurized animal products are other sources of contamination.
Animal manure is a far more common source.
Because synthetic fertilizer is better in %effect/$cost, if you exclude externalities at least.
If you would include nitrogen pollution and use of fossil fuels/CO2 production into the cost, using natural fertilizer would be a no-brainer.
If you would include nitrogen pollution and use of fossil fuels/CO2 production into the cost, using natural fertilizer would be a no-brainer.
Add in the cost of the human waste disposal that you make unnecessary (ah, I guess that's the "nitrogen pollution" bit). But I understand that phosphates are at least as serious a problem; and I believe nitrates are much less persistent than phosphates.
If I remember a fragment of chemistry from 50 years ago, it's something like "all inorganic nitrate salts are soluble in water at STC". Ammonia's also water-soluble (and volatile); rivers and groundwater can recover from nitrogen pollution more quickly than from phosphate pollution.
One other thing: phosphate fertilisers basically have to be dug out of the ground, and as reserves begin to run low, prices are increasing. But human poo is very high in phosphates.
I mean, even if there's a yick factor, let's face it: every glass of water we drink, whether from the tap or the mineral spring, has probably passed through the kidneys of dozens of animals, including fish, mammals and insects, and certainly hundreds of dinosaurs and millions of bateria. Why should we be concerned if the phosphate salt we use was once a part of human poo, which probably contained nasties at some point? And nobody's proposing that humans should chow-down on phosphate salts extracted from human poo; stick to bananas, and put the fertiliser on the banana tree.
If I remember a fragment of chemistry from 50 years ago, it's something like "all inorganic nitrate salts are soluble in water at STC". Ammonia's also water-soluble (and volatile); rivers and groundwater can recover from nitrogen pollution more quickly than from phosphate pollution.
One other thing: phosphate fertilisers basically have to be dug out of the ground, and as reserves begin to run low, prices are increasing. But human poo is very high in phosphates.
I mean, even if there's a yick factor, let's face it: every glass of water we drink, whether from the tap or the mineral spring, has probably passed through the kidneys of dozens of animals, including fish, mammals and insects, and certainly hundreds of dinosaurs and millions of bateria. Why should we be concerned if the phosphate salt we use was once a part of human poo, which probably contained nasties at some point? And nobody's proposing that humans should chow-down on phosphate salts extracted from human poo; stick to bananas, and put the fertiliser on the banana tree.
I would guess mainly because synthetic fertilizers are cheaper
One weakness in the report (unless I just missed it) where it covers 'essential inputs' and their costs: it does not address what proportion of those inputs are imported.
Considering a hypothetical where the UK is isolated, it seems like a significant omission.
UK was in EU until recently. 40% of EU budget is dedicated to food security under the name of Common Agricultural Policy. In practice, this is an extremely complex pool of regulations and subsidies that work really well to ensure that the EU can feed itself.
Pretty much every investment in agriculture, from buying tractors to the collection and distribution of organic fertilizers is heavily subsiduzed and controlled.
Pretty much every investment in agriculture, from buying tractors to the collection and distribution of organic fertilizers is heavily subsiduzed and controlled.
The Brits have gas which can be converted to good fertilizer. They eat a lot of beans too.
That might have been true at some point, but with all the "we have to fight Russia" rhetoric they have put that food security in jeopardy. It's by far not the only western country that does so. The Farmers protests in NL triggered by the request to massively slash nitrogen in farming are another example. It does remind be of Sri Lanka a little bit, albeit under a different pretext.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-08/high-gas-...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-08/high-gas-...
The UK is not self-sufficient in wheat, and depending on harvests has to imports millions of tons.
"Enough wheat to give enough calories to everyone" only means that in an extreme situation and with very strict rationing nutritional needs could be met. Which is self-sufficiency at the limit only.
"Enough wheat to give enough calories to everyone" only means that in an extreme situation and with very strict rationing nutritional needs could be met. Which is self-sufficiency at the limit only.
Indeed. In World War II Britain was dependant upon food imports even with rationing. After a period in which German U-boats happened to be unusually effective at destroying civilian transports, it got down to maybe a week's supply.
The government assumption was that - once the population realises they're going to be starved - they will revolt and insist on agreeing terms with Germany in exchange for food. Given what we later saw in Japan (which did starve its civilian population and they did not in fact rise up and force Japan to surrender) perhaps they were too pessimistic, we will never know because the next convoy got through.
The government assumption was that - once the population realises they're going to be starved - they will revolt and insist on agreeing terms with Germany in exchange for food. Given what we later saw in Japan (which did starve its civilian population and they did not in fact rise up and force Japan to surrender) perhaps they were too pessimistic, we will never know because the next convoy got through.
> switch out their caviar for something else
Try plastic-wrapped garbage at Co-op and Sainsbury's!
Try plastic-wrapped garbage at Co-op and Sainsbury's!
[deleted]
The Netherlands is still able to import LNG because it is almost satanically rich.
Self sufficiency is advisable for the poorer countries though.
Self sufficiency is advisable for the poorer countries though.
Countries that can't feed their people probably shouldn't be taking in massive numbers of immigrants.
This is a common feature of dictatorships: a boneheaded decision from a central government wreaks havoc on the people in the field that would know better.
It reminds me of Mao ordering all sparrows be killed because they eat agriculture seeds.
This of course caused a much bigger crisis with insects destroying crops - because everyone knows sparrows also eat lots of insects.
It reminds me of Mao ordering all sparrows be killed because they eat agriculture seeds.
This of course caused a much bigger crisis with insects destroying crops - because everyone knows sparrows also eat lots of insects.
Sri Lanka is not a dictatorship. They have regular elections. The Rajapakshas might have been authoritarian, even corrupt. But they won the last election in a landslide. Sri Lankans cannot entirely absolve themselves of blame for repeatedly electing a populist regime.
Are the two mutually exclusive? I don't see why a democracy can't elect a dictator, even a different one every couple of years. In ancient Rome the title dictator was a short-term thing.
In Rome there were two periods when the title of Dictator was used. First during the Republic where it indeed was a temporary role with limitations, then resurrected during the Empire as title only to justify authoritarianism.
You’re not right. What Rome called a dictator is not the modern definition of the term. An elected autocrat can have similarities to a dictator, but they aren’t one. Unless they rig the elections!
You're arguing against something that wasn't said. They said the "title of Dictator" was used, and that is correct, it was used in Roman history as they said.
The Roman title of Dictator is different from a modern day dictator, agreed — but if you read carefully no-one argued otherwise. The Roman title of Dictator more aligns with the modern concept of "emergency powers."
The Roman title of Dictator is different from a modern day dictator, agreed — but if you read carefully no-one argued otherwise. The Roman title of Dictator more aligns with the modern concept of "emergency powers."
Doesn't dictator means the one who have total control & power over a country? So, by definition, I think srilanka is not a dictatorship.
>>Sri Lankans cannot entirely absolve themselves of blame for repeatedly electing a populist regime.
If you have bigoted populace, it's dead easy to bait them into voting for some immediate emotional relief. Sri Lankan's wanted to have fun watching Tamils and Muslims get hurt, so it wasn't all that hard for some politician to get the people vote for him. The worse thing is they even put up with his bad decisions for the same reasons. And they did this for years.
The population is entirely responsible for this.
As it turns out they ran out of time, there's always that one point after which everything comes melting down.
If you have bigoted populace, it's dead easy to bait them into voting for some immediate emotional relief. Sri Lankan's wanted to have fun watching Tamils and Muslims get hurt, so it wasn't all that hard for some politician to get the people vote for him. The worse thing is they even put up with his bad decisions for the same reasons. And they did this for years.
The population is entirely responsible for this.
As it turns out they ran out of time, there's always that one point after which everything comes melting down.
i think its an unfortunate combination of many things, covid being the main. this shows that democracies are not immune to leaders resorting to populist measures to win elections.. hope its a good lesson to lankans and rest of us.
democracy isn't just about elections (otherwise even the totalitarian fascist Russia could have been called democratic :). Elections is just a basic necessary condition of democracy, a starting point. Many of those populist regimes aren't democracies really, they are more like ochlocracies naturally hijacked by authoritarians.
Yes - exactly. Genuine democracies are a complex patchwork of competing interests which somehow balance to generate policy that benefits most of the population.
As soon as you have a government run for the benefit of a small group, you no longer have a democracy.
Elections don't change this. Not even nominally free and fair ones.
The problem - as always - is that any system of government trends towards capture by Dark Tetrad types. No matter what decisions they appear to make, and no matter whether they're left/right populist/monarchist democratic/authoritarian, the consequences are always disastrous.
As soon as you have a government run for the benefit of a small group, you no longer have a democracy.
Elections don't change this. Not even nominally free and fair ones.
The problem - as always - is that any system of government trends towards capture by Dark Tetrad types. No matter what decisions they appear to make, and no matter whether they're left/right populist/monarchist democratic/authoritarian, the consequences are always disastrous.
It's not that, really. There are only so many boneheaded decisions that can come from a central government, and you risk over-weighting one person directly. More frequently, it's the indirect, created conditions typical of centralized power that allow sycophants and incompetents to run decision-making at lower levels -- where there is more impact and volume -- based on purely political and personal reasons.
[deleted]
'bad government must be authoritarian' meme is interesting to observe, as if it is impossible for bad governance to occur in democratic systems.
Sri Lanka clearly is a democracy, albeit a degenerate one
Sri Lanka clearly is a democracy, albeit a degenerate one
Its entirely possible for democratic systems to be authoritarian.
Sri Lanka is a democracy, in that they have elections, but it is also hilariously corrupt, with extremely authoritarian governance.
Sri Lanka is a democracy, in that they have elections, but it is also hilariously corrupt, with extremely authoritarian governance.
Which country isn't corrupt? I know many nations that are more corrupt than Srilanka. The major difference is Srilanka depended on tourism which led to this downfall.
Regarding the authoritarian governance, can you please supply the valid examples? Srilanka is just one example. There are many countries like Bhutan, Nepal which seems to be sliding day by day. I hope we won't label them authoritarian when they fail?
Democracy is not immune as people expect. We can't label demagouge who sways people as authoritarian. Democracy is only sucessful if majority of people aren't biased and vote based on merit rather than religion, greed etc.
Regarding the authoritarian governance, can you please supply the valid examples? Srilanka is just one example. There are many countries like Bhutan, Nepal which seems to be sliding day by day. I hope we won't label them authoritarian when they fail?
Democracy is not immune as people expect. We can't label demagouge who sways people as authoritarian. Democracy is only sucessful if majority of people aren't biased and vote based on merit rather than religion, greed etc.
this is not possible as 'authoritarian' is described as opposite to 'democratic'. Witness the recent posture of US alliance building / NATO to Asia pivoting / Anti-BRI funding.
sacrosancty(1)
Well to be fair to Mao, sparrows are renowned for their bourgeois capitalists tendencies.
The sparrows in my yard have been exploiting and oppressing the wrens for years.
The wrens are stuck back in the middle ages. They keep having faires about it.
That's a golf clap worthy pun.
Sometimes I think a huge percent of communism's economic overhead is simply everyone having to remember another dictionary's worth of current communist truths.
To the extent they have less mental free space to actually do work.
Even in abridged form... that's a lot. https://campbellmgold.co.uk/archive_definitive/red_book_chai...
To the extent they have less mental free space to actually do work.
Even in abridged form... that's a lot. https://campbellmgold.co.uk/archive_definitive/red_book_chai...
This is a common feature of most hierarchical structures (and also democracies)...
I'm not sure that "people in the field" would have predicted that killing all sparrows will lead to a surge of insects.
Perhaps Mao appealed too heavily to the sentiment of farmers upset with their seeds being eaten, not realizing that killing the sparrows would have had adverse ecological effects.
This was populalism with a dose of nationalism. Not a dictatorship, more in vain of Trumpism.
Believe me, the organic transition had nothing to do with agricultural practices and all to do with economics, with the logic being that fertilizer was an expensive import, and by banning fertilizer they could hemorrhage foreign exchange reserves a little less. Of course, they also earned a lot less because the bone-headed transition lead to a marked reduction in yield, only worsening the forex problem the ban of agricultural chemicals was meant to solve.
Organic fertilizer requires that the N, P, and K actually came from somewhere. Often, that's from something else that used non-organic fertilizer. So if a country goes all organic not only are yields down on the fields using organic fertilizer, the supply of organic fertilizer itself could dry up.
Nitrogen can come from the air by using nitrogen fixing crops in a rotation, so it can never run out (N2 is the most abundant gas on the atmosphere). The problem is that growing nitrogen fixers take a lot of land time that could otherwise be growing crops. Also not as nitrogen rich as fossil fertilizers (gas N2 is quite stable, difficult to fixers to extract in high quantities).
I know nothing about P and K though.
I know nothing about P and K though.
P is mainly manure I believe. It is residual in rocks but I don't know if plants can use that.
Ash is a good source for K if there are no other K-rich fermented dead plants available.
You get a lot of both from coffee grounds so someone might have to drink a lot of coffee.
Ash is a good source for K if there are no other K-rich fermented dead plants available.
You get a lot of both from coffee grounds so someone might have to drink a lot of coffee.
Number me in the coalition of the willing.
A phrase to remember: "Exports are made out of imports". Almost every export industry depends on an import in its production chain somewhere, which is why trade wars and sanctions are so destructive. Import-substitution planned economies have to be very clever about how they approach this to get it to work.
Very honestly, it might have worked out fine - organic produce fetches a much higher price overseas. If its already a somewhat niche product like tea, organic produce might go even higher and make up for the loss in yield.
For Sri Lanka, it was the perfect storm of covid decimating tourism AND overseas demand for their produce.
Without Covid, they might have been able to stay afloat on tourism dollars until the organic farming thing started showing results.
For Sri Lanka, it was the perfect storm of covid decimating tourism AND overseas demand for their produce.
Without Covid, they might have been able to stay afloat on tourism dollars until the organic farming thing started showing results.
Sri Lanka is the second largest tea exporter in the world -- if you converted all of that to organic, then odds are good that the organic tea market just collapses.
Beyond that, it's easy to get rid of modern fertilizers, but the tradeoff is significantly lower yield. To make up for the loss of yield, you need more space. Sri Lanka is a small island that is densely populated, so space is at a premium. Yielding less crop for the same money might have worked out if not for the pandemic, except for the fact that they domestically consumed most of their domestic staple goods, exporting the surplus. Now they've resorted to importing.
Beyond that, it's easy to get rid of modern fertilizers, but the tradeoff is significantly lower yield. To make up for the loss of yield, you need more space. Sri Lanka is a small island that is densely populated, so space is at a premium. Yielding less crop for the same money might have worked out if not for the pandemic, except for the fact that they domestically consumed most of their domestic staple goods, exporting the surplus. Now they've resorted to importing.
> Very honestly, it might have worked out fine - organic produce fetches a much higher price overseas.
This also affected staple crops like rice which are eaten domestically, effectively forcing the country to start importing food instead of fertilizer.
It's not plausible to move the entire agricultural sector towards luxury exports by government fiat.
This also affected staple crops like rice which are eaten domestically, effectively forcing the country to start importing food instead of fertilizer.
It's not plausible to move the entire agricultural sector towards luxury exports by government fiat.
> It's not plausible to move the entire agricultural sector towards luxury exports by government fiat.
.. overnight.
Some countries have managed to pivot towards luxury exports, and indeed this is one of the standard things that the IMF tries to make failing countries do, but it's a multi-decade process.
.. overnight.
Some countries have managed to pivot towards luxury exports, and indeed this is one of the standard things that the IMF tries to make failing countries do, but it's a multi-decade process.
Organic farming is strictly self-regulated. Usually it takes something like five years for a field that was used for traditional farming to be considered organic. The field has to flush the insecticide. With a decision to prevent forex issues by banning fertilizer, Sri Lanka could not afford to wait years for its organic products to be recognized internationally. The plan was foolish.
> niche product like tea
Perhaps your niches are smaller than mine. Some people regard tea as an indispensable bulk commodity.
Perhaps your niches are smaller than mine. Some people regard tea as an indispensable bulk commodity.
[deleted]
I guess that makes sense, initially, on paper. I would guess some organic farming fanatic put put the numbers that fertilizers import can be reduced XX%, and the dollar signs in the eyes of the ruling family lit up (All those dollars not spent on imports can be embezzled)
A smarter person would have understood that there is a return on investment for fertilizer.
Doesn’t matter if you don’t have cash.
That means you go broke or into debt more slowly
Seems like the switch wasn't about chemical fertilizer vs organic fertilizier but imported fertilizer vs local fertilizer.
"When Sri Lanka's foreign currency shortages became a serious problem in early 2021, the government tried to limit them by banning imports of chemical fertiliser.
It told farmers to use locally sourced organic fertilisers instead."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-61028138
"When Sri Lanka's foreign currency shortages became a serious problem in early 2021, the government tried to limit them by banning imports of chemical fertiliser.
It told farmers to use locally sourced organic fertilisers instead."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-61028138
>Seems like the switch wasn't about chemical fertilizer vs organic fertilizier but imported fertilizer vs local fertilizer.
it is a bit moot point as organic fertilizer can't be practically transported/imported for any significant distance.
it is a bit moot point as organic fertilizer can't be practically transported/imported for any significant distance.
Not just a dictatorship problem. Look at the halting of nuclear in Germany - a decision made by Angela Merkel after a bottle of wine with her husband according to The Atlantic.
I would argue that the current energy crisis was also partly caused by the ESG drive which while laudable in aspiration got ahead of physical practical implementation capacity.
I would argue that the current energy crisis was also partly caused by the ESG drive which while laudable in aspiration got ahead of physical practical implementation capacity.
Large scale buildouts of natural gas infrastructure is not ESG.
I know it is tempting to pin this one on the environmentalists, but this is on the establishment. Starting with Schröder who realized he could find an easy way to keep German industry competitive and line his pockets and live a comfortable life forever.
This is similar to the Sri Lankan situation. It does not matter how you label it. The lack of fertilizer was clearly not voluntary.
I know it is tempting to pin this one on the environmentalists, but this is on the establishment. Starting with Schröder who realized he could find an easy way to keep German industry competitive and line his pockets and live a comfortable life forever.
This is similar to the Sri Lankan situation. It does not matter how you label it. The lack of fertilizer was clearly not voluntary.
Devemoped countries have underinvested in natural gas infrastructure compared to its importance in keeping their shiny new renewable-heavy grids actually operating though - and in particular ESG campaigners have been very successful at blocking investment in natural gas production in most of the Western democratic world. Which has just resulted in heavy dependencies on imports from unstable dictatorships since there's no real alternative to fossil fuels yet. I know the Guardian here in the UK has been pushing for a continued block on new natural gas production that they admit will only stop it being produced in stable democratic countries, even well after Russia's invasion of Ukraine demonstrated the actual consequences of this.
Sri Lanka has an ESG score of 98.1 out of 100.
Substituting electricity made at natural gas fuelled power stations for electricity made at coal fuelled power stations does however result in large carbon emission reductions and is seen as ESG (or was prior to Russia's invasion of Ukraine anyway)
What I don't get is how nuclear goes against any ESG. It's just fear.
Merkel is pro nuclear, the public sentiment forced her hand after Fukushima though.
>the public sentiment forced her hand after Fukushima though
I wonder how many people died in Fukushima vs how many Ukrainians were killed by Russian soldiers this year.
I wonder how many people died in Fukushima vs how many Ukrainians were killed by Russian soldiers this year.
The problem for Germany, and Europe more broadly, is that nuclear power stations don't create natural gas.
Electricity and natural gas aren't interchangeable commodities, particularly given Germany's infrastructure.
Electricity and natural gas aren't interchangeable commodities, particularly given Germany's infrastructure.
They can be used to create hydrogen however which can substitute for many energy uses that currently consume natural gas.
Also Europe produces a lot of electricity with natural gas fuelled turbines.
Also Europe produces a lot of electricity with natural gas fuelled turbines.
Or vs how many people die every day due to German coal plants :(
I fail to see the correlation. Blaming Germany for everything is becoming a tiresome meme.
The amount of shilling for nuclear energy on this site is never ceases to amaze me. It's just more expensive than alternatives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_pla... and the costs related to storing fuel, decommission old reactors and so on are also huge and paid by the taxpayer.
Are you seriously claiming that saying closing existing nuclear is stupid is 'shilling' for nuclear?
New nuclear is expensive. Existing nuclear is not.
New nuclear is expensive. Existing nuclear is not.
Nuclear is reliable and can run 24/7.
Wind and solar cannot guarantee production. This means you need storage. The problem with storage is you need to determine how much you want. If you decide on 1 month of storage what happens when you have limited wind and sun for a month and you are running out of stored power?
Nuclear doesn't have that problem. This is why nuclear is a must in the future.
Wind and solar cannot guarantee production. This means you need storage. The problem with storage is you need to determine how much you want. If you decide on 1 month of storage what happens when you have limited wind and sun for a month and you are running out of stored power?
Nuclear doesn't have that problem. This is why nuclear is a must in the future.
Angela Merkel was in power for 16 years. How is she not a dictator. She usurped power.
I've been reading a lot of Soviet history lately and it provides a source of a huge number of similar agricultural disasters. Both Russian and Chinese attitudes towards agricultural peasants has been that they are dispensable humans, and it shows in how these countries have had disasters:
* collectivitzation leading to the Holodomor in Ukraine, mass famine in Kazakhstan, and hunger throughout the USSR, killing millions upon millions through starvation. All the act of a single, paranoid, murderous tyrant.
* Kruschev's love affair with corn, that ended up being a crop failure after a few lucky years in smaller trials. This is actually the more level-headed play than Stalin's, but such a large shift, even with a trial, was a gigantic failure.
Lately I've been completely enamored with the book How Asia Works lately, and in detailing the success and failure of many different Asian nations development in the 20th century, it homes in on agricultural independence as a corner stone for further economic development to industrialization. Without a broad base of independent small farmers, that have small farms that they can directly profit from, a large base of a middle class can never develop. Large industrial farms, favored both by capitalists and Marxists concentrate power into too few hands and are also far less productive in total agricultural output, even if they they are more profitable. It doesn't talk much about Sri Lanka, focusing more on north east Asia, but I would be quite curious about how and if Sri Lanka's land reforms from the 70s were effective.
* collectivitzation leading to the Holodomor in Ukraine, mass famine in Kazakhstan, and hunger throughout the USSR, killing millions upon millions through starvation. All the act of a single, paranoid, murderous tyrant.
* Kruschev's love affair with corn, that ended up being a crop failure after a few lucky years in smaller trials. This is actually the more level-headed play than Stalin's, but such a large shift, even with a trial, was a gigantic failure.
Lately I've been completely enamored with the book How Asia Works lately, and in detailing the success and failure of many different Asian nations development in the 20th century, it homes in on agricultural independence as a corner stone for further economic development to industrialization. Without a broad base of independent small farmers, that have small farms that they can directly profit from, a large base of a middle class can never develop. Large industrial farms, favored both by capitalists and Marxists concentrate power into too few hands and are also far less productive in total agricultural output, even if they they are more profitable. It doesn't talk much about Sri Lanka, focusing more on north east Asia, but I would be quite curious about how and if Sri Lanka's land reforms from the 70s were effective.
> Both Russian and Chinese attitudes towards agricultural peasants has been that they are dispensable humans
You can see elements of this in the West as well: agricultural work is often done by precarious non-citizens, and every now and again an entire semi-trailer of these people being imported turn up dead.
You can see elements of this in the West as well: agricultural work is often done by precarious non-citizens, and every now and again an entire semi-trailer of these people being imported turn up dead.
Lysenkoism should be taught in schools as an example of how extremely dangerous pseudo science can be.
More specifically pseudo science not guided by empiricism. The line between science and pseudo science is very thin. Scientific theories are often incorrect, especially in life science, but we refine upon them based in empirical and observed data.
You are right, but when results are falsified because of political expedience, that refining process will be subverted or discarded altogether.
There was the context for collectivization as rapidly industrializing agriculture, which did lay the foundation for the rapid urban growth afterwards and the prevention of further famines which were regular occurrences up to that point through the new established agricultural infrastructure. The middle class developed from the resulting maturation of industrialization and urbanization instead. So the economy itself underwent a rapid shift from peasant based to factory worker based and beyond to catch up with the developed world.
Of course there is the human cost of such rapid change, but I wonder if the swiftness was compacting human immiersation into a tighter time frame rather than having it evened out over a long period of time. Perhaps the huge economic disruption led to more overall immiseration? Or did the planners think that rapidness would have resulted in less overall immiseration like a trolley problem? If South Korea was an example, students depised the pro-industrialization military dictators, but later generations have started to appreciated the fruits and sacrifice of pro-industrialization.
Interestingly as a side note, North Korea has a more corn based agriculture out of necessity to adapt to the poorer agricultural conditions of the north versus south, which was traditionally the farmland of Korea.
Of course there is the human cost of such rapid change, but I wonder if the swiftness was compacting human immiersation into a tighter time frame rather than having it evened out over a long period of time. Perhaps the huge economic disruption led to more overall immiseration? Or did the planners think that rapidness would have resulted in less overall immiseration like a trolley problem? If South Korea was an example, students depised the pro-industrialization military dictators, but later generations have started to appreciated the fruits and sacrifice of pro-industrialization.
Interestingly as a side note, North Korea has a more corn based agriculture out of necessity to adapt to the poorer agricultural conditions of the north versus south, which was traditionally the farmland of Korea.
In the end if 70-ies and beginning of 80-ies agruculture was booming in USSR. Read your book until the end.
Is that why they were importing grain from the US and Canada?
Booming != effective. Look around SV, how many companies produce genuine value?
Anyway, even agricultural output grew in USSR until mid-80ies and, importantly, salaries were at least double of city workers' salaries.
Anyway, even agricultural output grew in USSR until mid-80ies and, importantly, salaries were at least double of city workers' salaries.
How Asia Works was good. Especially the land land reform bits. Any recommendations on Soviet history?
>Lately I've been completely enamored with the book How Asia Works
Thanks for the recommendation.
Thanks for the recommendation.
> , it homes in on agricultural independence as a corner stone for further economic development to industrialization.
Yes. How did Sri Lanka, in Asia, get it so wrong?
Yes. How did Sri Lanka, in Asia, get it so wrong?
Yeah. Europe is learning this the hard way too. We cannot drastically shift to “green” and then buy everything “not green” from our adversaries!
Although the crisis is not nearly as bad as in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka now needs to import rice, even when they were an exporter before!
Although the crisis is not nearly as bad as in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka now needs to import rice, even when they were an exporter before!
Europe had a ton of time to convert. The push was not strong enough, especially during the rather long economic boom (circa 2012 - 2019).
There's a premium that can be exacted from switching to organic agriculture that isn't be discussed in this article. Sri Lanka has a limited land mass available for food production and they mostly export commodities to other countries. We're talking ~25,000 sq-mi. For context, the US state of Kansas is ~82,000 sq-mi. If you cannot physically expand the footprint of agriculture in Sri Lanka to boost revenues, the thinking in government was probably to try to switch to organic to fetch a higher price for exports. The mistake is that you can't just flip a switch and transition to organic production. That kind of change requires a generational change in farmers to pull off, and you will still fetch far lower yields in the interim.
Not to be rude but did you bother to think before writing that post? Sri Lanka is a net importer of food. It is not self sufficient.
You can’t get a organic premium if you can’t feed your own people, and organic food has a well known yield reduction.
It was abundantly transparent to all commentators at the time that this was purely to try and reduce capital outflows.
It was abundantly transparent to all commentators at the time that this was purely to try and reduce capital outflows.
Uh, yes, my snarky friend. I didn't suggest Sri Lanka is agriculturally self-sufficient. With so little a land area to work with, that would not be possible.
It's not clear that switching to organic agriculture in any way reduces capital outflows. Do you mean reducing import costs by not having to import chemical fertilizer? If that were the case, I think Sri Lanka would focus on boosting domestic production and finding cheaper suppliers.
It's not clear that switching to organic agriculture in any way reduces capital outflows. Do you mean reducing import costs by not having to import chemical fertilizer? If that were the case, I think Sri Lanka would focus on boosting domestic production and finding cheaper suppliers.
What if you sell the organic produce and use the money to buy beer non/organic imported food?
It might be more profitable in the long term, but a hard cutover sure isn’t.
It might be more profitable in the long term, but a hard cutover sure isn’t.
If you are short on land, organic is not a good approach. It takes 40% more land compared to traditional farming.
And is it likely that buyers who favour organic produce would be looking at food miles and buying locally? Not sure if that's as relevant at export scale.
Depends what you are growing.
How's the organic tea market doing? FWIW, I've never seen organic tea in shops, and I don't know anyone that insists on organic tea.
What country are you in? In the US, I've seen organic tea in the vast majority of grocery stores I've been to. Cafes sometimes have it too, but it's less common.
That's the nice thing about free trade and free markets - everyone is running a decentralized version of that experiment and incrementally updating the data live. If you make both paths available (organic vs fertilizer) and let the farmers whose livelihoods are on the line choose, then they are very likely to make the best choice.
The best choice for farmers isn't necessarily the best choice for society as a whole.
If society values agricultural output or having income in rural areas it's a lot better to have farmers making the choices themselves than to chose whatever non-farmer/urban/plutocrat politicians would mandate.
What about the nitrogen issue in places like Belgium or the Netherlands?
Not when the externalities are hidden, especially when hidden from both producer and consumer
If you could profitably get higher prices like that, wouldn't farmers have already done it?
> A country ought to feed its people, provide basic services like power and medical facilities on its own, without depending on imports.
Ah, wouldn't that be nice!
I live in the UK, a country that hasn't been able to feed itself using only its own produce for centuries; Napoleon called us a "nation of shopkeepers" because we couldn't survive without trade. Our staple is wheat; but our wheat isn't as good as North American wheat, and anyway we are far from self-sufficient.
We used to export coal, oil and gas; but the North Sea has largely dried up, the coal mines are mostly closed, and anyway coal is sort of un-hip these days.
I wish the NHS would stop putting services out to open tender. Private (overseas) medical companies bid for the business, so that more and more of our health services are provided privately, by US medical companies. We're perfectly capable of looking after the health of our population without overseas help; but apparently our politicians don't think it's a good idea.
Ah, wouldn't that be nice!
I live in the UK, a country that hasn't been able to feed itself using only its own produce for centuries; Napoleon called us a "nation of shopkeepers" because we couldn't survive without trade. Our staple is wheat; but our wheat isn't as good as North American wheat, and anyway we are far from self-sufficient.
We used to export coal, oil and gas; but the North Sea has largely dried up, the coal mines are mostly closed, and anyway coal is sort of un-hip these days.
I wish the NHS would stop putting services out to open tender. Private (overseas) medical companies bid for the business, so that more and more of our health services are provided privately, by US medical companies. We're perfectly capable of looking after the health of our population without overseas help; but apparently our politicians don't think it's a good idea.
>>I live in the UK, a country that hasn't been able to feed itself using only its own produce for centuries
From the past few centuries, Britain has been doing just fine colonising bulk of the world and taking their resources.
I guess the past before that wasn't all that glorious.
From the past few centuries, Britain has been doing just fine colonising bulk of the world and taking their resources.
I guess the past before that wasn't all that glorious.
"A wise prince acts within that which constrains him"
The issue is that often people come to power based on unfulfillable promises and corruption. So the food supply is one constraint, but so is the fact you promises 1001 bribes and special favours. So now you have to deliver on the latter soon and the former can wait for months. So you do and desperately cling on.
There is fundamentally no difference between this happening in Sri Lanka or here in the UK with Brexit and Boris. The only difference is that the Pound devaluing doesn't cause food shortages etc where as the LKR does. In both cases, corrupt leaders picked by a corrupt electorate that think they can get something for nothing.
The issue is that often people come to power based on unfulfillable promises and corruption. So the food supply is one constraint, but so is the fact you promises 1001 bribes and special favours. So now you have to deliver on the latter soon and the former can wait for months. So you do and desperately cling on.
There is fundamentally no difference between this happening in Sri Lanka or here in the UK with Brexit and Boris. The only difference is that the Pound devaluing doesn't cause food shortages etc where as the LKR does. In both cases, corrupt leaders picked by a corrupt electorate that think they can get something for nothing.
Awful lot of food banks in the UK, though. A hyperlocal kind of shortage.
https://www.macrotrends.net/2549/pound-dollar-exchange-rate-... : ouch. Hard to believe it was £1.70/$ only eight years ago. The referendum itself slips it from $1.45 to $1.30 and it never really gets back up again.
I wonder how long the government will last with energy bills doubling and diesel hovering around £2/l.
https://www.macrotrends.net/2549/pound-dollar-exchange-rate-... : ouch. Hard to believe it was £1.70/$ only eight years ago. The referendum itself slips it from $1.45 to $1.30 and it never really gets back up again.
I wonder how long the government will last with energy bills doubling and diesel hovering around £2/l.
Pushed into by the WEF.
Now memoryholed.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190122012624/https://www.wefor...
https://web.archive.org/web/20190122012624/https://www.wefor...
As I understand it, it was to improve their ESG score (they got up to 98) in order to spur up foreign investments. It did not quite work out as expected...
> The drastic move to organic farming is puzzling.
That's because it was a desperate response to a currency crisis.
They couldn't pay to import fertilizer, so the government trotted out the absurd idea of using domestically produced fertilizer.
The whole "organic" thing was a red herring to dress up what was a last ditch attempt to compensate for gross mismanagement of the economy.
Unfortunately, a lot of politically motivated folks have bought into this narrative--either deliberately or unwittingly--and are using it to attack sustainability initiatives, not recognizing that they're falling for simple propaganda (see cloutchaser's comment in this thread for a good example of that).
That's because it was a desperate response to a currency crisis.
They couldn't pay to import fertilizer, so the government trotted out the absurd idea of using domestically produced fertilizer.
The whole "organic" thing was a red herring to dress up what was a last ditch attempt to compensate for gross mismanagement of the economy.
Unfortunately, a lot of politically motivated folks have bought into this narrative--either deliberately or unwittingly--and are using it to attack sustainability initiatives, not recognizing that they're falling for simple propaganda (see cloutchaser's comment in this thread for a good example of that).
>This also underlines the importance of self sufficiency in necessities.
Embarrassingly for your argument, trying to be self-sufficient is exactly what brought on this crisis. Reckless attempts at protectionism and nativism can be just as damaging as reliance on unreliable trade partners.
Economic security is very important of course, but for most countries self-sufficiency is either flat out unattainable or an incredibly expensive luxury. Fortunately there are other ways to achieve economic security, the most important of which is figuring out who you can trust, and hedging the risks of any exposure you have to those you can't.
Embarrassingly for your argument, trying to be self-sufficient is exactly what brought on this crisis. Reckless attempts at protectionism and nativism can be just as damaging as reliance on unreliable trade partners.
Economic security is very important of course, but for most countries self-sufficiency is either flat out unattainable or an incredibly expensive luxury. Fortunately there are other ways to achieve economic security, the most important of which is figuring out who you can trust, and hedging the risks of any exposure you have to those you can't.
Singapore is doing well right, so not sure if lack self sufficiency is sure shot failure.
Every common farmer could have told you that you will run into huge problems if you don't use fertilizer on a soil that has been fertilized for years. The soil probably has zero nutritional value for plants and any water will quickly evaporate. It is basically just sand that may or may not be too acidic or too alkaline because of chemical residues. It would take years to prepare the soil. You will also need more land to plant different crops and let it regenerate.
Chemical NPK fertilizer is something terribly effective for that matter. It would be a huge improvement to regulate how much is allowed and farmers need to be compensated for the additional land usage to be able to do sensible crop rotations and allow the soil to actually build up nutrition. Overall this could easily take a decade or two.
Of course the motivation wasn't ecological, fertilizer got more expensive and there was no money to buy it with. Industrial fertilizer is made from natural gas after all... You could probably also use oil...
Chemical NPK fertilizer is something terribly effective for that matter. It would be a huge improvement to regulate how much is allowed and farmers need to be compensated for the additional land usage to be able to do sensible crop rotations and allow the soil to actually build up nutrition. Overall this could easily take a decade or two.
Of course the motivation wasn't ecological, fertilizer got more expensive and there was no money to buy it with. Industrial fertilizer is made from natural gas after all... You could probably also use oil...
> Any level headed person, forget a politician, would want to experiment first, see the results, gauge and then expand selectively. That is common sense.
> I guess when you are a dictator ish government and you rule the country with an iron first, the institutions of the state stop being anything and simply become rubber stamps.
The precautionary principle. I've noticed this is ever-more fiercely applied to anything involving protection of the environment, but never, ever applied to protection of national ethnicities and culture in Western countries - where the mere mention of latter invites being cancelled.
> I guess when you are a dictator ish government and you rule the country with an iron first, the institutions of the state stop being anything and simply become rubber stamps.
The precautionary principle. I've noticed this is ever-more fiercely applied to anything involving protection of the environment, but never, ever applied to protection of national ethnicities and culture in Western countries - where the mere mention of latter invites being cancelled.
They wanted to cut taxes. To cut taxes, they needed to cut costs. Not paying for fertilizer would be one way. But of course it would destroy the economy.
In most countries I expect the private sector to pay for fertilizer. In Sri Lanka, due to the currency peg the government was paying for fertilizer. It seems that they chose the wrong solution to that problem.
Cut taxes? Weren't they more worried about their foreign currency reserves that went to these fertilisers?
> Any level headed person, forget a politician, would want to experiment first,
We are also not doing that here in the West when it comes to pushing almost of our energy inputs into renewables. Also, see the recent Dutch farmers' revolt and the reasons behind them, seems like not that much thought was given there, either.
We are also not doing that here in the West when it comes to pushing almost of our energy inputs into renewables. Also, see the recent Dutch farmers' revolt and the reasons behind them, seems like not that much thought was given there, either.
> Any level headed person, forget a politician, would want to
Maybe this is just a result of things being filtered for newsiness, but a lot of our politicians seem to be not so level headed a lot of the time.
Maybe this is just a result of things being filtered for newsiness, but a lot of our politicians seem to be not so level headed a lot of the time.
> Any level headed person, forget a politician, would want to experiment first, see the results, gauge and then expand selectively. That is common sense.
Are you kidding me? The complete religious level consensus on the "save the planet" or "climate change" side of the discussion is everything should go back to being organic and sustainable, and unquestionably right now, with no testing.
Take a look at the greens in germany, who are still getting the last 3 nuclear plants shut down RIGHT NOW. I mean what the fuck.
And this isn't politicians. Politicians just reflect what their voting base want. There is an insane dogma now that anything artificial is basically evil, for many many of the public.
Are you kidding me? The complete religious level consensus on the "save the planet" or "climate change" side of the discussion is everything should go back to being organic and sustainable, and unquestionably right now, with no testing.
Take a look at the greens in germany, who are still getting the last 3 nuclear plants shut down RIGHT NOW. I mean what the fuck.
And this isn't politicians. Politicians just reflect what their voting base want. There is an insane dogma now that anything artificial is basically evil, for many many of the public.
> But the most boneheaded, bizarre mistake that the Sri Lankan government made was a disastrous plan to shift the entire country to organic agriculture. In April of 2021 the government banned the import and use of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. This devastated Sri Lankan agriculture, since, as it turns out, fertilizer is really really important. Production of tea — Sri Lanka’s main cash crop — fell by 18% in a year. Production of rice — the main food crop — fell by even more.
From https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/05/sri-lanka-organic-farmi... :
> By 2020, the total cost of fertilizer imports and subsidies was close to $500 million each year. With fertilizer prices rising, the tab was likely to increase further in 2021. Banning synthetic fertilizers seemingly allowed Rajapaksa to kill two birds with one stone: improving the nation’s foreign exchange situation while also cutting a massive expenditure on subsidies from the pandemic-hit public budget.
> But when it comes to agricultural practices and yields, there is no free lunch. Agricultural inputs—chemicals, nutrients, land, labor, and irrigation—bear a critical relationship to agricultural output. From the moment the plan was announced, agronomists in Sri Lanka and around the world warned that agricultural yields would fall substantially. The government claimed it would increase the production of manure and other organic fertilizers in place of imported synthetic fertilizers. But there was no conceivable way the nation could produce enough fertilizer domestically to make up for the shortfall.
You don't get anything "for free", and cutting supports like this will inevitably doom a sputtering economy, when the actual solution was almost certainly more government spending, not less.
The US is actually lucky to understand this at the deepest levels of policy and law making, with massive aid packages to prevent total collapse. Even Europe tried harsh austerity in the wake of 2008, and the fad lasted way too long there.
The Sri Lankan leader's hostile attitude towards the Sri Lankan population is what made protesters storm the leader's home.
From https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/05/sri-lanka-organic-farmi... :
> By 2020, the total cost of fertilizer imports and subsidies was close to $500 million each year. With fertilizer prices rising, the tab was likely to increase further in 2021. Banning synthetic fertilizers seemingly allowed Rajapaksa to kill two birds with one stone: improving the nation’s foreign exchange situation while also cutting a massive expenditure on subsidies from the pandemic-hit public budget.
> But when it comes to agricultural practices and yields, there is no free lunch. Agricultural inputs—chemicals, nutrients, land, labor, and irrigation—bear a critical relationship to agricultural output. From the moment the plan was announced, agronomists in Sri Lanka and around the world warned that agricultural yields would fall substantially. The government claimed it would increase the production of manure and other organic fertilizers in place of imported synthetic fertilizers. But there was no conceivable way the nation could produce enough fertilizer domestically to make up for the shortfall.
You don't get anything "for free", and cutting supports like this will inevitably doom a sputtering economy, when the actual solution was almost certainly more government spending, not less.
The US is actually lucky to understand this at the deepest levels of policy and law making, with massive aid packages to prevent total collapse. Even Europe tried harsh austerity in the wake of 2008, and the fad lasted way too long there.
The Sri Lankan leader's hostile attitude towards the Sri Lankan population is what made protesters storm the leader's home.
> cutting supports like this will inevitably doom a sputtering economy, when the actual solution was almost certainly more government spending, not less.
In the US that might be a sensible policy decision but SL can't do that.
The concrete supports that are needed (fuel, fertilizer, food) are bought with dollars and yuan. The government ran out of those, because it was already spending unsustainably to prop up the economy.
In the US that might be a sensible policy decision but SL can't do that.
The concrete supports that are needed (fuel, fertilizer, food) are bought with dollars and yuan. The government ran out of those, because it was already spending unsustainably to prop up the economy.
The government slashed taxes, right when the government needed the money. They were not making an honest effort to support the economy, they were setting up to loot it.
> The US is actually lucky to understand this at the deepest levels of policy and law making, with massive aid packages to prevent total collapse.
The current inflation crisis suggests that even the US economy can reach its limit with endless money printing and stimulus.
With the cost of borrowing going up, the executive and congress are going to start feeling pressure to cut spending or dramatically raise taxes.
The current inflation crisis suggests that even the US economy can reach its limit with endless money printing and stimulus.
With the cost of borrowing going up, the executive and congress are going to start feeling pressure to cut spending or dramatically raise taxes.
The current spike in inflation is a world-wide phenomena, effecting every country on Earth, and therefore it seems unlikely to have much to do with the USA's creation of new money. The USA printed trillions of dollars of new money after 2008 and yet inflation remained very low for the next decade. If, now, the USA's printing of money is having some new effect, you have to explain why Argentina, South Africa, India, Vietnam and China are suddenly vulnerable to USA monetary policy to a degree that they've never been vulnerable before.
The current spike did not happen by chance or out of the blue. This is the result of worldwide efforts to limit the fallout of the 2008 financial crisis. To the extent that it was possible a lot of the countries followed the US in enacting liberal low cost lending. US of course with the mighty dollar was able to print a far more and pump far more into their economy than other countries. But many other countries followed with similar efforts. Also the newly minted dollars don't just sit in the US. I would say a lot of inflation in India is driven also by cheap VC money that flooded the Indian market in the last decade. Turns out if you dump a super duper amount of money into the economy inflation goes up. Who knew!!? As for the delay of a decade for this to kick in, my theory is that the supply took that time to really hot the market because only a few uber rich made the most of this liberal printing frenzy and the bottleneck delayed the eventual overheating of the market.
> This is the result of worldwide efforts to limit the fallout of the 2008 financial crisis.
> overheating of the market.
Citations needed.
> overheating of the market.
Citations needed.
> This is the result of worldwide efforts to limit the fallout of the 2008 financial crisis.
This needs citation?
> overheating of the market.
I did say "My theory"
This needs citation?
> overheating of the market.
I did say "My theory"
You gave a theory for why it took a decade. You stated the cause as fact.
Is there a single western country which didn’t print massive amounts of money following COVID and prior to that with 2008?
I remember seeing tons of economics articles talking about how the consequences of monetary expansion were historically being overrated by economists in the past and that countries have far more capacity than previously thought. But that was easily said during the good times when spending is high.
Blaming it all on a war in Eastern Europe seems to be convenient excuse but there’s a reason you don’t spend wildly during good times, so you have the capacity to spend during the bad times. This has consistent been a critique of modern monetarist and Keynes policy (although you could argue it’s far more monetarist since a Keynesian approach would be via things like infrastructure investments for working class jobs, instead of just endless spending on backchannel megacorporate dealing in thousand page bills).
I remember seeing tons of economics articles talking about how the consequences of monetary expansion were historically being overrated by economists in the past and that countries have far more capacity than previously thought. But that was easily said during the good times when spending is high.
Blaming it all on a war in Eastern Europe seems to be convenient excuse but there’s a reason you don’t spend wildly during good times, so you have the capacity to spend during the bad times. This has consistent been a critique of modern monetarist and Keynes policy (although you could argue it’s far more monetarist since a Keynesian approach would be via things like infrastructure investments for working class jobs, instead of just endless spending on backchannel megacorporate dealing in thousand page bills).
We’ve seen inflation in different areas for two lears - lumber (both supply side by mills shutting down from covid , and demand side from people doing construction projects due to covid), imports (shipping chaos from covid and the evergiven didn’t help), silicon chips and their knockons into things from cars to network switches due to china’s covid policies, to oil (demand evaporated due to covid, then when demand came back supply didn’t follow), then Russia caused more supply constriction in both oil and grain supplies.
Not true about India. We had a spike in inflation but its now going down. Our latest print was 7.1%.
India also didn’t print much money in the pandemic. The effect is clear now. We only had a short lived inflation spike after the economy reopened and its now getting back to normal.
India also didn’t print much money in the pandemic. The effect is clear now. We only had a short lived inflation spike after the economy reopened and its now getting back to normal.
Except Japan, Switzerland or Norway just to name the few. Meanwhile, it's rising in countries that followed Fed's playbook (notably the EU block and specifically Eurozone countries which fall under ECB's policy).
Resources are more expensive because of interruptions due to war and disease.
Like in the 1970s. Crude oil prices went up 10X between 1972 and 1982. Is it surprising that the price of everything went up during that time, or economies everywhere experienced stress?
Fiscal and monetary policy isn't the whole explanation, no matter what certain recipients of the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel would have you believe.
Like in the 1970s. Crude oil prices went up 10X between 1972 and 1982. Is it surprising that the price of everything went up during that time, or economies everywhere experienced stress?
Fiscal and monetary policy isn't the whole explanation, no matter what certain recipients of the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel would have you believe.
The US economy sets the tone for the rest of the world. It’s absolutely huge and a lot of the evonomic systems evolved around serving it.
> With the cost of borrowing going up, the executive and congress are going to start feeling pressure to cut spending or dramatically raise taxes.
Hmm, not sure that's the case given recent headlines in Politico.
Hmm, not sure that's the case given recent headlines in Politico.
You would hope that someone wanting to switch to organic agriculture would encourage it … rather than just flip a switch…
Organic agriculture is where it belong. Mom and pop farms sold in stores where it costs 3x as much for no particular increase in nutritional value. Fertilizers are tangentially bad for the environment but not directly, only in that it causes algal blooms in water bodies. Pesticides are bad yes but the research should concentrate on finding pesticides that work well with the environment. We got close with glyphosate but we’re finding out that we didn’t.
The nutrients in soil are a non-renewable resource. You can’t grow on the same piece of land and expect a bumper crop every year if you don’t use fertilizers.
The nutrients in soil are a non-renewable resource. You can’t grow on the same piece of land and expect a bumper crop every year if you don’t use fertilizers.
Plants grown in healthy soil that does not require short term synthetic inputs are more resistant to pests. The organic fertilizers and composts that build up suitable topsoil are literally the "pesticides that with well with the environment" that you are looking for.
No one is expecting bumper crops without any nutrient inputs. Synthetic fertilizers are not the only possible nutrient inputs.
No one is expecting bumper crops without any nutrient inputs. Synthetic fertilizers are not the only possible nutrient inputs.
>The nutrients in soil are a non-renewable resource.
I'm sorry but they actually are. Every time you do tillage you start from scratch. Hence you run out of nutrients much faster than if you used no till. Most of the fertilizer in tillage operations just gets washed away during rain which results in an over application of fertilizer and the runoff results in algae blooms.
I'm sorry but they actually are. Every time you do tillage you start from scratch. Hence you run out of nutrients much faster than if you used no till. Most of the fertilizer in tillage operations just gets washed away during rain which results in an over application of fertilizer and the runoff results in algae blooms.
No-till and avoiding the use of fungicide, along with proper rotation/leaving the land fallow is the way.
Carefully considered mixed planting can remove the need for pesticides too.
Shits not hard, but trading off the "big yield now" for "yields for longer" requires long term thinking that a lot of people are terrible at.
Carefully considered mixed planting can remove the need for pesticides too.
Shits not hard, but trading off the "big yield now" for "yields for longer" requires long term thinking that a lot of people are terrible at.
If you use fertilizers and expect a bumper crop every harvest, eventually the soil gets fucked to a point where amendments to make it viable are too expensive, getting to a point where the soil loses integrity and is unusable.
To keep land arable in the longer term, you need to do crop/usage rotation, no-till farming, etc.
Agriculture is fun.
To keep land arable in the longer term, you need to do crop/usage rotation, no-till farming, etc.
Agriculture is fun.
> To keep land arable in the longer term, you need to do crop/usage rotation
It’s not like we’ve known this for 8,000 years
It’s not like we’ve known this for 8,000 years
> only in that it causes algal blooms in water bodies
...which results in water that's so clogged it can't support fish, aquatic arthropods and so on.
Perhaps that doesn't matter, if the river rolling past your window is the Mississippi; but in this country, our longest rivers are only 100 miles or so.
...which results in water that's so clogged it can't support fish, aquatic arthropods and so on.
Perhaps that doesn't matter, if the river rolling past your window is the Mississippi; but in this country, our longest rivers are only 100 miles or so.
Reminds me of governments who try to switch people to public transport by making driving harder, rather than making public transport better.
In my experience, the number one thing that makes driving harder is other drivers, not the government. Drivers full roads to over-capacity and then I sit in gridlock.
In Paris it is a deliberate attempt to create traffic jam to force people to stop driving. They only succeeded on the first part.
But Paris already has amazing public transit that is only getting expanded more (line E to Mantes through La Défense, Grand Paris Express, line 14, a bunch of trams, etc.). And the point of the road closures was to make walking and mostly cycling more enjoyable. You can see that it worked, because places like Rivoli, quais de Seine, bd Sébastopol are full with bikes. Making driving more of a pain thus inciting more use of public transit or bikes is just a bonus.
There is virtually no need to drive a private automobile in Paris if you are able bodied.
The same applies to Berlin, London, and many other places.
The same applies to Berlin, London, and many other places.
...and have a taste for tunnels stinking piss, overcrowded trains, very long and sordid corridors (Chatelet).
Don't know about Chatelet but the last time I was to London (which is not more than a year ago), the tunnels and trains seemed fine. Yes, it gets crowded during the morning peak hours in some of the busy routes but apart from that, they seem to be really good. Makes me sad that most other cities do not provide that kind of easily accessible public transport.
Sorry I was talking about Paris. London is a much more pleasant experience, despite the tube being so much older, the tunnels narrower and the temperature very hot in the summer. I avoid taking the metro in Paris, I have no problem taking the tube in London. Not the least because the brits have preserved a form of courtesy without which there would be deads every day in the tube (if people were pushing on overcrowded platforms like they do in Paris).
London's transport system is extremely well run, despite the national governments political hostility towards it.
TfL (Transport for London) do a lot of interesting things to manage traffic (rerouting people on foot through stations in interesting ways) to manage traffic/congestion.
Its also rather heavily surveilled and policed by the British Transport Police (a fully fledged police force specifically for the UK public transport networks).
TfL (Transport for London) do a lot of interesting things to manage traffic (rerouting people on foot through stations in interesting ways) to manage traffic/congestion.
Its also rather heavily surveilled and policed by the British Transport Police (a fully fledged police force specifically for the UK public transport networks).
Tbf, I didn't mind that too much. The metro could use some improvements, for sure.
Nah, i really dislike Paris and wouldn't come back ever, but in fairness, those measure really had an impact on the pollution and the public transportation useage.
A lot of people feel the need to force others to do what they think is right. Regardless of consequences
A good chunk of people feel the need to force others, no matter what right or wrong looks like objectively. The exercise of power is the entire point.
The US is very lucky as a significant amount of people have been taught that government aid/handouts are wrong, as in generally. I'm even impressed Trump spent a few trillion and still didn't get blasted for it by most people. The only two serious politicians who spoke up about it was Ben Sasse who in a conference call with constituents said "he spends like a drunken sailor" and Ted Cruise who at the end with the last aid package voted against it.
What will happen to this country if the next president actually stops spending in order to do what his voters want?
What will happen to this country if the next president actually stops spending in order to do what his voters want?
What's funny is the deepest red counties in the reddest states are also the largest recipients of US domestic agriculture subsidies and benefit programs.
Then you have other things like Walmart and similar McJobs where the government is indirectly subsidizing the companies, by various child food aid, healthcare and benefits to employees because the company doesn't pay enough for its employees to live without aid.
Then you have other things like Walmart and similar McJobs where the government is indirectly subsidizing the companies, by various child food aid, healthcare and benefits to employees because the company doesn't pay enough for its employees to live without aid.
That's why subsidies bad and subsidies good are a false dilemma. "Spending money well" might seem like an obvious solution but it runs up against the problem of corrupt politicians, of which there are many. Hence, we have (worldwide) politicians handing out money to places they are (probably) needed (in your example, the agriculture subsidies) and places they are not (Walmart and similar McJobs), and it's possible that the latter receive more than the former.
It's also possible that it's impossible to get subsidies spent in a way that isn't rife with such corruption. I would say that the only way it may be possible is small government. Not because subsidies are bad, but the only way to watch government closely enough to keep corruption low is to make it small enough to watch in entirety.
Like a computer program, if it has less lines and less features, or less overall complexity, it should be easier to spot bugs and egregious mistakes. That's not the same as not wanting features at all. Or, it can become a political version of Zawinski's law where people want more from government and the resulting size and complexity is such that a group of corrupt developers can spread their corruption across so many branches and parts of the project that no one can watch it all (after all, isn't that how the 3 letter agencies undermine security software?)
It's also possible that it's impossible to get subsidies spent in a way that isn't rife with such corruption. I would say that the only way it may be possible is small government. Not because subsidies are bad, but the only way to watch government closely enough to keep corruption low is to make it small enough to watch in entirety.
Like a computer program, if it has less lines and less features, or less overall complexity, it should be easier to spot bugs and egregious mistakes. That's not the same as not wanting features at all. Or, it can become a political version of Zawinski's law where people want more from government and the resulting size and complexity is such that a group of corrupt developers can spread their corruption across so many branches and parts of the project that no one can watch it all (after all, isn't that how the 3 letter agencies undermine security software?)
> would say that the only way it may be possible is small government. Not because subsidies are bad, but the only way to watch government closely enough to keep corruption low is to make it small enough to watch in entirety
Well said, this sort of thinking needs to both be better understood on the right (all gov spending, taxation, and intervention isn’t immediately bad) and on the left (every critique of government doesn’t mean the only alternative people want is some radical anarcho-capitalist zero government fantasy world).
Instead it’s smaller and more effective government but still strongly supporting it where it makes sense ie subsidized education, healthcare, and other places with uncontrolled externalities that markets can’t properly serve.
More about being cheerleaders for what works, not just lazily pushing a government spending free for all nor a “stop everything” approach where only soft targets get reduced like teachers salaries instead of subsidies to billion dollar companies.
It’s harder and nuanced, but still worth fighting for.
Well said, this sort of thinking needs to both be better understood on the right (all gov spending, taxation, and intervention isn’t immediately bad) and on the left (every critique of government doesn’t mean the only alternative people want is some radical anarcho-capitalist zero government fantasy world).
Instead it’s smaller and more effective government but still strongly supporting it where it makes sense ie subsidized education, healthcare, and other places with uncontrolled externalities that markets can’t properly serve.
More about being cheerleaders for what works, not just lazily pushing a government spending free for all nor a “stop everything” approach where only soft targets get reduced like teachers salaries instead of subsidies to billion dollar companies.
It’s harder and nuanced, but still worth fighting for.
The Democrats don't believe in subsidies for everything all the time, nor do they ever campaign on that. Some republicans simply say "stop government handouts" they don't say "Some government handouts are good but we need to control it"
Were you meant to reply to me? I didn't mention either party and I'm not an American. It may be a serendipitous mistake though, as it has uncovered an obvious bias that you should address.
That’s not how benefits work. Giving free things to the employees makes them richer, which increases their negotiation power, which increases their wages. They would be getting paid less without it, not more.
What can cause this is welfare cliffs and systems with asset tests like SSI.
Bernie does like to say this because it sounds good, but he knows it’s false.
What can cause this is welfare cliffs and systems with asset tests like SSI.
Bernie does like to say this because it sounds good, but he knows it’s false.
Then why does anyone get paid government-mandated minimum wage?
Because given the choice a minimum-wage-paying employer would pay even less. That's not inconsistent with state benefits making employees richer, it's just not making them rich enough to negotiate above that level.
You saw this play out across the pandemic: business owners complained that the increased level of state aid was damaging their ability to employ at the minimum wage level.
Also it's got to be said: some people aren't good at negotiating and/or don't know their value. In aggregate the effect you see is employee supply drying up as the total number willing to work at that level decreases, but in specific there will be individuals who haven't made that choice yet.
You saw this play out across the pandemic: business owners complained that the increased level of state aid was damaging their ability to employ at the minimum wage level.
Also it's got to be said: some people aren't good at negotiating and/or don't know their value. In aggregate the effect you see is employee supply drying up as the total number willing to work at that level decreases, but in specific there will be individuals who haven't made that choice yet.
You can get paid more or less on the minimum wage by e.g. having more or less working hours given to you. And some people don't use their negotiating power for increased wages, but rather for other preferences (like getting a formal job instead of an informal one, better working conditions, time with their children, etc.)
Of course there's a lot more to it than that.
Of course there's a lot more to it than that.
People in the US are only against handouts to other people who aren't them. I wonder how many people would opt out Medicare or SSI if they could?
My mother in-law complained about letting refugees into the country and says we shouldn't allow due to the cost yet she is a war refugee herself. When asked about her situation, she says she deserved it.
Also how many companies opted out of PPP loans.
My mother in-law complained about letting refugees into the country and says we shouldn't allow due to the cost yet she is a war refugee herself. When asked about her situation, she says she deserved it.
Also how many companies opted out of PPP loans.
> People in the US are only against handouts to other people who aren't them. I wonder how many people would opt out Medicare or SSI if they could?
> Also how many companies opted out of PPP loans.
This is exactly what I was going to highlight, people who use the narrative that some how a $1200 stimulus check sent nearly years ago is what is keeping people from taking low paying, dead-end jobs are the first to overlook the fact that PPP was the biggest welfare handout to the business class in some time, compounded on top of lower tax obligations. And 75% of the PPP [0] was never actually used for payroll!
It's insulting to working class people to see this narrative be as persuasive as it is, even amongst their own, but if I've learned anything about US culture is that was it 'trashy' for the lower class, is some how 'classy' for the rich. It's a pathetic attempt to divide people into already highly contentious tribes in order to maintain the illusion of business as usual.
0: https://finance.yahoo.com/video/report-shows-most-paycheck-p...
> Also how many companies opted out of PPP loans.
This is exactly what I was going to highlight, people who use the narrative that some how a $1200 stimulus check sent nearly years ago is what is keeping people from taking low paying, dead-end jobs are the first to overlook the fact that PPP was the biggest welfare handout to the business class in some time, compounded on top of lower tax obligations. And 75% of the PPP [0] was never actually used for payroll!
It's insulting to working class people to see this narrative be as persuasive as it is, even amongst their own, but if I've learned anything about US culture is that was it 'trashy' for the lower class, is some how 'classy' for the rich. It's a pathetic attempt to divide people into already highly contentious tribes in order to maintain the illusion of business as usual.
0: https://finance.yahoo.com/video/report-shows-most-paycheck-p...
You get a recession, like every other time the state has reduced spending below taxation whilst running a trade deficit.
Ok, but how do expect money to keep circulating? Negative interest rates?
>You don't get anything "for free", and cutting supports like this will inevitably doom a sputtering economy, when the actual solution was almost certainly more government spending, not less.
Government spending isn't free magic money either. You increase the amount of money in circulation, hoping that people will produce more goods. Instead, you increase the size of the bullshit economy - low-effort activities that only exist under the abundance of money. So more and more stuff gets imported from China because nobody in the right mind will take a $1/hour factory job if you can be a wellness youtuber for a multiple of that. The amount of useless bureaucracy grows, the number of people willing to take responsibility dwindles, but everyone is happy because, well, Mother Government takes care of us all.
Occasionally you notice that the wages don't grow and the housing is unaffordable because the workers don't really have any leverage anymore, but you brush off those thoughts because there are far too many distractions anyway.
Then BOOM, that fragile supply line involving slave labor in China and natural resources from Putin's friends gets broken, and suddenly, we have a shortage of everything, can't manufacture our own stuff, and that freshly minted dollar can buy you many shitcoins, but won't get you any baby formula.
I think, we are about to find out that excessive spending was nothing more than borrowing from our future prosperity, and the time for that debt to mature is coming fast.
Government spending isn't free magic money either. You increase the amount of money in circulation, hoping that people will produce more goods. Instead, you increase the size of the bullshit economy - low-effort activities that only exist under the abundance of money. So more and more stuff gets imported from China because nobody in the right mind will take a $1/hour factory job if you can be a wellness youtuber for a multiple of that. The amount of useless bureaucracy grows, the number of people willing to take responsibility dwindles, but everyone is happy because, well, Mother Government takes care of us all.
Occasionally you notice that the wages don't grow and the housing is unaffordable because the workers don't really have any leverage anymore, but you brush off those thoughts because there are far too many distractions anyway.
Then BOOM, that fragile supply line involving slave labor in China and natural resources from Putin's friends gets broken, and suddenly, we have a shortage of everything, can't manufacture our own stuff, and that freshly minted dollar can buy you many shitcoins, but won't get you any baby formula.
I think, we are about to find out that excessive spending was nothing more than borrowing from our future prosperity, and the time for that debt to mature is coming fast.
That’s when it goes bad, but borrowing against the future to kickstart today is also the principal behind innumerable success stories.
May I humbly ask for an example? In my personal experience, trying to rush a short-term solution while ignoring the long-term implications always makes situation worse. Like eating planting stock to address immediate hunger would cause a devastating famine next season.
Japan, Taiwan and South Korea all taxed the crap out of their people while poor to subsidise industry by controlling foreign exchange. It still would have been impossible without massive amounts of foreign investment. They had to borrow the money abroad to invest in industrial infrastructure. Same for the US in the 1800s. Britain had the capital. The US had the exciting investment opportunities.
The UK took so long to get to the Industrial Revolution because it had to save the money itself. Everyone since then has been able to rely on capital other people in order countries have saved to jumpstart their economic growth.
The UK took so long to get to the Industrial Revolution because it had to save the money itself. Everyone since then has been able to rely on capital other people in order countries have saved to jumpstart their economic growth.
Yes. But his point is that what we have been doing is more like taking on credit card debt to spend on booze than taking a bank loan to buy machinery. And assuming that being the case, your statement completely misses the mark.
Let’s say you have land but don’t have any planting stock or enough money to buy it. So, you borrow some from a guy who has extra, promising to give him twice as much back next year. You grow food, and collect enough planting stock to pay back the lender and plant next year’s harvest.
You don't borrow and eat the planting stock, you borrow the left over products that nobody else bought.
And example of "borrowing against the future to kickstart today"? Pretty much all businesses borrow to grow. All governments borrow, especially in times of need. Pretty much all people borrow to buy a home.
The first part of the article about how Sri Lanka would get foreign currency
(swap, export or borrow) almost completely ignores the well documented devastation of the tourist industry, where people bring euros or dollars, due to covid19 and shutdowns of travel.
Yes I suppose it falls into the category of swap, because people bring euros and exchange them for local currency to buy local goods and services. But it was a big part of the "swap" that vanished for 2+ years.
Yes I suppose it falls into the category of swap, because people bring euros and exchange them for local currency to buy local goods and services. But it was a big part of the "swap" that vanished for 2+ years.
It's mentioned later in the article, and while it's certainly a factor, there are a lot of other countries with an even larger dependence on tourism (Maldives, Fiji, Thailand, etc) that did not suffer a full blown economic crisis as a result.
The big reason why is this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Sri_Lanka_Easter_bombings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Sri_Lanka_Easter_bombings...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Sri_Lanka_Easter_bombings...
This was also discussed in the article.
How dare you!
We don't read articles over here!
We don't read articles over here!
I do not know about Maldives, but Fiji and Thailand still have their community connections. Family ties going back a long way. I think that helps a lot.
Havent had a crisis yet*
Tourism is an export. There might be some forex involved, but that is true of imports too.
And terrorists do not forget
> Without imports, many Sri Lankans will quickly find themselves hungry, stranded
How did these island nations sustain themselves before ? In other words, what has changed that they can’t live off the land anymore? And by that, I mean the sea.
Has Sri Lanka’s fish been pillaged? Is it being exported to wealthier nations that command higher prices, even as there is a domestic food crisis?
How much of this is because of globalism and developing hard dependencies? I’ve traveled to all 47 of Japan’s prefectures and I still see bountiful agriculture in the countryside. Even as developed and wealthy as Japan is, with many global dependencies in imports/exports, it is still heavily invested in agriculture.
How did these island nations sustain themselves before ? In other words, what has changed that they can’t live off the land anymore? And by that, I mean the sea.
Has Sri Lanka’s fish been pillaged? Is it being exported to wealthier nations that command higher prices, even as there is a domestic food crisis?
How much of this is because of globalism and developing hard dependencies? I’ve traveled to all 47 of Japan’s prefectures and I still see bountiful agriculture in the countryside. Even as developed and wealthy as Japan is, with many global dependencies in imports/exports, it is still heavily invested in agriculture.
> In other words, what has changed
It's often a series of mis-steps that lead to catastrophic failures such as being suffered by Srilanka. Here are a few that come to my mind, in no particular order.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2016/05/28/the-stor...
[2] https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/sri-lanka-rows-b...
It's often a series of mis-steps that lead to catastrophic failures such as being suffered by Srilanka. Here are a few that come to my mind, in no particular order.
1. Tourism took a big hit due to COVID lockdowns.
2. They took on huge debt from China to fund their massive infrastructure developments with close to zero plan as to how to reap the benefit of that infrastructure. For instance this airport[1]
3. The knee jerk banning of fertiliser.
4. Corrupt and authoritarian (despite being democratically elected) government favouring their cronies.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2016/05/28/the-stor...
[2] https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/sri-lanka-rows-b...
#2 is actually false. Only ~10% of Sri Lanka's debt is Chinese. The majority is from western private market lenders. Chinese debt also have lower interest than western ones.
See this detailed report by The Atlantic: The Chinese ‘Debt Trap’ Is a Myth https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/02/ch...
And this study by British campaign charity Debt Justice, which found that the situation in Africa is similar: https://debtjustice.org.uk/press-release/african-governments...
The Chinese debt trap is a lie made by mainstream media, who for some reason blindly writes negative China articles without any kind of factual investigation. Worse, these lies distract us from actual debt traps initiated by western actors — over we which we have far more control than China. If we actually care about these countries then we need to first demand from the media that they do factually correct reporting.
See this detailed report by The Atlantic: The Chinese ‘Debt Trap’ Is a Myth https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/02/ch...
And this study by British campaign charity Debt Justice, which found that the situation in Africa is similar: https://debtjustice.org.uk/press-release/african-governments...
The Chinese debt trap is a lie made by mainstream media, who for some reason blindly writes negative China articles without any kind of factual investigation. Worse, these lies distract us from actual debt traps initiated by western actors — over we which we have far more control than China. If we actually care about these countries then we need to first demand from the media that they do factually correct reporting.
Then why did China ask for the Hambantota port[1]. It is a clear strategic and economic policy. Not to deny other countries haven't done that in the past; but it is a clear way of gaining control - especially the taking control over infrastructure part.
Same is the case with Africa, and many projects of which do not benefit the citizens of those countries in any way too. [2]
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/asia/china-sri-lank... [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJSD8XV3qzE
Same is the case with Africa, and many projects of which do not benefit the citizens of those countries in any way too. [2]
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/asia/china-sri-lank... [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJSD8XV3qzE
The Hambantota case is described in detail in The Atlantic's articl, which explains why it's not a debt trap. For one, the feasibility study for Hambantota was first made by Canada — the Chinese only came in later, competing with western countries for its construction. Second, see this excerpt:
> Our research shows that Chinese banks are willing to restructure the terms of existing loans and have never actually seized an asset from any country, much less the port of Hambantota.
Even if we assume that Hambantota is a problem, total Sri Lanka debt owned by China is still at 10%, much less than non-Chinese debt. China is not the biggest problem, if it is one at all.
Whether projects benefit citizen really is up to African governments. Chinese companies build whatever African governments ask them to; Chinese don't force their projects on Africa. When I buy a house and the house doesn't end up benefiting me, that's my problem for having chosen that house, not the mortgage's fault for "debt trapping" me.
But it's not at all set in stone that none of the projects, or even the majority of the projects, are useless. In a recent study, "China Surpasses US in Eyes of Young Africans, Survey Shows": https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-12/china-sur...
> Our research shows that Chinese banks are willing to restructure the terms of existing loans and have never actually seized an asset from any country, much less the port of Hambantota.
Even if we assume that Hambantota is a problem, total Sri Lanka debt owned by China is still at 10%, much less than non-Chinese debt. China is not the biggest problem, if it is one at all.
Whether projects benefit citizen really is up to African governments. Chinese companies build whatever African governments ask them to; Chinese don't force their projects on Africa. When I buy a house and the house doesn't end up benefiting me, that's my problem for having chosen that house, not the mortgage's fault for "debt trapping" me.
But it's not at all set in stone that none of the projects, or even the majority of the projects, are useless. In a recent study, "China Surpasses US in Eyes of Young Africans, Survey Shows": https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-12/china-sur...
I'm not sure why you're carrying so much water for China, a huge nation that can fend for itself.
China absolutely throws its weight around - just like all the other big nations.
It also blindly pursues its own self-interest again like all the other big nations.
China also isn't a monolith, with companies and individuals making deals or going after projects abroad. Sometimes on win-win terms, sometimes trying to screw a target out of money. Again - just like other nations.
China uses money in diplomacy. That's just a fact. They do so not out of altruism but out of self-interest.
China absolutely throws its weight around - just like all the other big nations.
It also blindly pursues its own self-interest again like all the other big nations.
China also isn't a monolith, with companies and individuals making deals or going after projects abroad. Sometimes on win-win terms, sometimes trying to screw a target out of money. Again - just like other nations.
China uses money in diplomacy. That's just a fact. They do so not out of altruism but out of self-interest.
I can also turn this around: I'm not sure why you have so much problem with me pointing out that accusations are not based on facts. It sounds as if you want those accusations to be true despite facts.
What is wrong with doing things not based on altruism? There is nothing wrong with business. Nobody builds bridges and hospital for free.
What is wrong with doing things not based on altruism? There is nothing wrong with business. Nobody builds bridges and hospital for free.
> Only ~10% of Sri Lanka's debt is Chinese. The majority is from western private market lenders. Chinese debt also have lower interest than western ones
My understanding is more of the Chinese debt is unproductive. 5% borrowed to build a useless port saps FX in a way 20% borrowed to buy yield-boosting agricultural inputs does not.
My understanding is more of the Chinese debt is unproductive. 5% borrowed to build a useless port saps FX in a way 20% borrowed to buy yield-boosting agricultural inputs does not.
From The Atlantic's article, the feasibility study for the Sri Lanka port came from Canada. The Chinese didn't "trap" them into something unproductive, a western study said it's feasible.
Also there were conditions linked to the debt. Here is the money but you have to use it to build a highway using Chinese companies. Pure neocolonialism
Those conditions are negotiable. Countries can say "no" to "using Chinese companies". If countries say "we want local companies" then Chinese negotiators say "okay let's do that".
Furthermore, a major reason why Chinese companies did the work was due to a lack of skilled workforce in the country. Some countries chose for a hybrid model, where they ask for Chinese companies to train local workers.
Finally, if something does go wrong, then The Atlantic's article says that Chinese lenders are often willing to restructure the loan.
Furthermore, a major reason why Chinese companies did the work was due to a lack of skilled workforce in the country. Some countries chose for a hybrid model, where they ask for Chinese companies to train local workers.
Finally, if something does go wrong, then The Atlantic's article says that Chinese lenders are often willing to restructure the loan.
> Countries can say "no" to "using Chinese companies".
Except they aren't as the contracts prohibit open bidding.
> The Atlantic's article says that Chinese lenders are often willing to restructure the loan.
Except when they are not willing, which is most often the case. They restructure when things are seemly fine but if shit hits the fan like in the case of Sri Lanka, they wont discuss it.
But the CCP prob jots it down to 'a mistranslation' and 'rumor' as they have done in the past.
Except they aren't as the contracts prohibit open bidding.
> The Atlantic's article says that Chinese lenders are often willing to restructure the loan.
Except when they are not willing, which is most often the case. They restructure when things are seemly fine but if shit hits the fan like in the case of Sri Lanka, they wont discuss it.
But the CCP prob jots it down to 'a mistranslation' and 'rumor' as they have done in the past.
They restructured African debts when Africa got into trouble due to COVID, so the claim that "they only restructure when things are fine" is emperically false.
Regarding being able to negotiate: high-profile African commentators, such as Gyude Moore, have pointed out on multiple occasions that it's perfectly possible to say no to an offer, after which the Chinese offer new terms. You should check out his videos some time.
Regarding being able to negotiate: high-profile African commentators, such as Gyude Moore, have pointed out on multiple occasions that it's perfectly possible to say no to an offer, after which the Chinese offer new terms. You should check out his videos some time.
So because they restructured some they must restructure all despite the fact they refused to restructure Sri Lanka. So Sri Lanka is stuck paying like 5% interest vs japans 0.7%.
I know you love the CCP but it’s hilarious how much credit you give them despite not wanting to live in China.
I know you love the CCP but it’s hilarious how much credit you give them despite not wanting to live in China.
I can also turn this around: what about the non-Chinese lenders who own much more Sri Lanka debt? Do they restructure? Why single out China specifically? Why is it necessary for China to allow restructuring all debt? Would you impose this standard on all other lenders?
It is entirely possible to be fed up with anti-China propaganda while not being specifically a CCP supporter.
It is also entirely possible for an overseas American to say positive things about the US without living there.
If I do live in China you’ll just say that I'm being forced to say these things. Since you can't, you mock me for not living there, making up some arbitrary requirement that doesn't make sense. This is intelectually dishonest.
It is entirely possible to be fed up with anti-China propaganda while not being specifically a CCP supporter.
It is also entirely possible for an overseas American to say positive things about the US without living there.
If I do live in China you’ll just say that I'm being forced to say these things. Since you can't, you mock me for not living there, making up some arbitrary requirement that doesn't make sense. This is intelectually dishonest.
It’s not anti-China propaganda when 1) it’s not propaganda. And 2) it’s about the CCP not China.
But calling it anti-China is a typical tactic to attempt to discredit people.
China credit is the only one knocking on doors and wanting ports to be built by paying off governments to push things through when the courts are saying it’s not a good deal and it has non favourable clauses with the end result of china getting to control the port they built at the cost of the government.
But calling it anti-China is a typical tactic to attempt to discredit people.
China credit is the only one knocking on doors and wanting ports to be built by paying off governments to push things through when the courts are saying it’s not a good deal and it has non favourable clauses with the end result of china getting to control the port they built at the cost of the government.
It's not propaganda except the narrative literally came from Trump, while the US govt has publicly admitted to sponsoring anti-BRI journalism: https://prospect.org/politics/congress-proposes-500-million-...
It's "only about the CCP" except Chinese scientists, Chinese engineers, Chinese students and other ordinary Chinese people are declared "linked to the CCP" without evidence, thereby destroying their lives. "Nearly 90% of the defendants charged with spying are of Chinese heritage. This includes citizens with connections to Taiwan, Hong Kong, and long-standing Chinese diaspora communities in Southeast Asia": https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/12/02/1040656/china-in...
And even if it's only about CCP, how does that justify not basing accusations on facts? I do not at all oppose you having legitimate grievances against CCP. I do oppose false grievances with no basis in reality, against any party.
You end your post with a claim. Please provide evidence that China forced countries to take loans, as opposed to countries having agency in this matter.
It's "only about the CCP" except Chinese scientists, Chinese engineers, Chinese students and other ordinary Chinese people are declared "linked to the CCP" without evidence, thereby destroying their lives. "Nearly 90% of the defendants charged with spying are of Chinese heritage. This includes citizens with connections to Taiwan, Hong Kong, and long-standing Chinese diaspora communities in Southeast Asia": https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/12/02/1040656/china-in...
And even if it's only about CCP, how does that justify not basing accusations on facts? I do not at all oppose you having legitimate grievances against CCP. I do oppose false grievances with no basis in reality, against any party.
You end your post with a claim. Please provide evidence that China forced countries to take loans, as opposed to countries having agency in this matter.
Are there any examples of western nations taking control of power grids, ports, etc, when those loans are defaulted on?
It used to be, mind you some decades ago, a normal policy for foreign government to keep what they have payed for. Take Panama or Suez canal. That being said, the practice is essentially colonialism and for various reasons it became taboo in the west.
Publicly that is. If you are private company there is still a lot of things you can get away with, but you won't get gunboats to show up anymore.
Simply put. China is doing the same thing. Performing business like decisions on international scale. West has just decided that such approach is immoral and mostly abandoned it as a policy.
Publicly that is. If you are private company there is still a lot of things you can get away with, but you won't get gunboats to show up anymore.
Simply put. China is doing the same thing. Performing business like decisions on international scale. West has just decided that such approach is immoral and mostly abandoned it as a policy.
> West has....abandoned it as a policy.
Has it though? They don't do it overtly but through IMF. When a debt ridden country approaches IMF for help that help comes with heavy strings attached such as cutting down social spending, and privatisation. And IMF is controlled by ex-colonial nations. Even a developed nation like Greece got a taste of it. The funny thing is through a debt ridden country IMF is in fact helping debtors who are mostly western entities.
There are quite a few layers here to peel but safe to say west hasn't abandoned their policy just that they outsourced it to IMF.
Has it though? They don't do it overtly but through IMF. When a debt ridden country approaches IMF for help that help comes with heavy strings attached such as cutting down social spending, and privatisation. And IMF is controlled by ex-colonial nations. Even a developed nation like Greece got a taste of it. The funny thing is through a debt ridden country IMF is in fact helping debtors who are mostly western entities.
There are quite a few layers here to peel but safe to say west hasn't abandoned their policy just that they outsourced it to IMF.
If the lending country is poor and one does not take the asset itself as collateral, then how does one lend to these countries? Don't lend at all? What should these countries do to acquire critical infrastructure?
You are on the right track. That's one of the reasons China makes inroads across global south, because it's willing to "make a deal". Another reason is that China doesn't want any sort of commitments to international standards, democracy etc.
Western governments offer 'help', but it's rarely what local governments want. And often it means publicly complying with rules imposed from the 'outside'. When the 'outside' includes your former colonial overlord and you have turned anti-colonialism into most important aspect of your political identity (for example African Union has no problem with dictators, or genocide, but you better not have capital on different continent) you'd be undermining your regime by accepting it.
In the meantime China offers exactly what you ask for, and doesn't ask about minorities or how long your presidential term is.
For now it's mostly working out for locals, their governments at least. In the long run ... Congo had very beneficial relationship with Portugal during the first century or so, not so much afterwards.[0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Kongo#Foundation_of...
Western governments offer 'help', but it's rarely what local governments want. And often it means publicly complying with rules imposed from the 'outside'. When the 'outside' includes your former colonial overlord and you have turned anti-colonialism into most important aspect of your political identity (for example African Union has no problem with dictators, or genocide, but you better not have capital on different continent) you'd be undermining your regime by accepting it.
In the meantime China offers exactly what you ask for, and doesn't ask about minorities or how long your presidential term is.
For now it's mostly working out for locals, their governments at least. In the long run ... Congo had very beneficial relationship with Portugal during the first century or so, not so much afterwards.[0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Kongo#Foundation_of...
There are those who believe that conditions such as committing to international standards and democracy, even though well-intended, are actually counter-productive — at least during a country's development phase.
It's indeed an open question how beneficial the relationship will be in the long term. But it's not at all guaranteed that it will end up like Portugal. China was a big naval power during the Ming dynasty, but didn't colonize Africa or South-East Asia. One should be careful with projecting western history onto China.
Some high-profile Chinese figures recognize the problem that BRI projects don't always end up benefitting people. For example, Zhang Chun, researcher at the Center for African Studies at Yunnan University, said this:
"There is a lack of an accurate analysis of Africa's benefits from the Belt and Road Initiative and that needs to be remedied"
Source: 欧亚系统科学研究会 https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/Vva1N_LVMBwcfpZcSl57rw
It's indeed an open question how beneficial the relationship will be in the long term. But it's not at all guaranteed that it will end up like Portugal. China was a big naval power during the Ming dynasty, but didn't colonize Africa or South-East Asia. One should be careful with projecting western history onto China.
Some high-profile Chinese figures recognize the problem that BRI projects don't always end up benefitting people. For example, Zhang Chun, researcher at the Center for African Studies at Yunnan University, said this:
"There is a lack of an accurate analysis of Africa's benefits from the Belt and Road Initiative and that needs to be remedied"
Source: 欧亚系统科学研究会 https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/Vva1N_LVMBwcfpZcSl57rw
Yes, privatization was heavily pushed by the IMF in Latin America and Africa as a condition for receiving loans [0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_adjustment
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_adjustment
Not producing enough food is pretty normal. In my native Norway we have not been self sufficient in hundreds of years. Only 2.5% of the land is arable. Any time there was a serious war and shipping lanes got blocked like in Napoleonic wars we got into deep trouble. Plenty of people died. Same deal in the Netherlands. They were not self sufficient in their Golden age. The Soviet Union was not self-sufficient. It was a big reason why it collapsed. It got import problems just like Sri-Lanka causing political turmoil and eventual collapse.
Funny what being unable to import can do to a country. The US cannot have this problem since it controls the world reserve-currency. It can in principle print itself out of any problem.
Funny what being unable to import can do to a country. The US cannot have this problem since it controls the world reserve-currency. It can in principle print itself out of any problem.
> The US cannot have this problem since it controls the world reserve-currency
you got that the wrong way around. The US has the world reserve _because_ it cannot have this problem (of not having enough domestic production of necessities).
The world isn't entirely controlled by the US - even though they do dictate a large portion of financial policy all over the world, the countries of the world decided to use the US currency as an intermediary because of the stability and assurances (that has recently been shocked by financial sanctions of magnitudes never seen before).
you got that the wrong way around. The US has the world reserve _because_ it cannot have this problem (of not having enough domestic production of necessities).
The world isn't entirely controlled by the US - even though they do dictate a large portion of financial policy all over the world, the countries of the world decided to use the US currency as an intermediary because of the stability and assurances (that has recently been shocked by financial sanctions of magnitudes never seen before).
> […] the countries of the world decided to use the US currency as an intermediary because of the stability and assurances (that has recently been shocked by financial sanctions of magnitudes never seen before).
After WWII, the world agreed to use the US Dollar as reserve currency because the US promised to exchange every 35 USD for one troy ounce of gold, as per the Bretton Woods agreement.
And when the US defaulted on this obligation in 1971 the world continued using the USD since there was no other politically viable alternative.
After WWII, the world agreed to use the US Dollar as reserve currency because the US promised to exchange every 35 USD for one troy ounce of gold, as per the Bretton Woods agreement.
And when the US defaulted on this obligation in 1971 the world continued using the USD since there was no other politically viable alternative.
Sri Lanka's population is 2x what it was in 1965.
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/LKA/sri-lanka/populati...
Japan imports about 60% of its food.
https://www.merlofarminggroup.com/agri-view-japan%E2%80%99s-...
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/LKA/sri-lanka/populati...
Japan imports about 60% of its food.
https://www.merlofarminggroup.com/agri-view-japan%E2%80%99s-...
I am well aware that Japan imports food.
The point is not about whether a country imports at all, but whether it can mobilize domestic production of essential food crops in times of crisis.
Even China import and has rice reserves. There is a reason these government have and subsidized rice reserves rather tea reserves.
The point is not about whether a country imports at all, but whether it can mobilize domestic production of essential food crops in times of crisis.
Even China import and has rice reserves. There is a reason these government have and subsidized rice reserves rather tea reserves.
I think Japan is well aware it couldn't feed the whole island chain even if it absolutely needed to, but it also has a robust domestic manufacturing and high tech industrial exporting sector which continually acquires funds for foreign currency and food. Totally unlike Sri Lanka.
To put it crudely Japan doesn't need to grow all its own food because people send it money for Toyotas and Mitsubishi cargo trucks and such, and it uses that to buy whatever food it wants.
To put it crudely Japan doesn't need to grow all its own food because people send it money for Toyotas and Mitsubishi cargo trucks and such, and it uses that to buy whatever food it wants.
> whether it can mobilize domestic production of essential food crops in times of crisis.
Sri Lanka could, but not with the chemical fertiliser ban.
Sri Lanka could, but not with the chemical fertiliser ban.
As the article notes the government forced the food production to go all organic in one year with no plan, yields crashed, and now they have to import even rice.
It sustained itself thru tourism and local food production.
They have sold tea overseas since being a British colony.
Also, another factor is they have to import all their medicines and oil, which is also dependent on foreign reserves. So now not enough food, no cooking fuel, no medicines, no petrol, and not enough fuel for electricity. Truly a wretched set of problems.
You can buy Dilmah tea to help, Hand made Batik shirts, and visit. It is a truly lovely country, with good tourism facilities.
It sustained itself thru tourism and local food production.
They have sold tea overseas since being a British colony.
Also, another factor is they have to import all their medicines and oil, which is also dependent on foreign reserves. So now not enough food, no cooking fuel, no medicines, no petrol, and not enough fuel for electricity. Truly a wretched set of problems.
You can buy Dilmah tea to help, Hand made Batik shirts, and visit. It is a truly lovely country, with good tourism facilities.
> Dilmah tea to help, Hand made Batik shirts
In my experience, exported goods provide very little profit to the original manufacturer. The middle layers greedily absorb all the profit. In fact, in the west, labor costs to stock/sell it in the supermarket are significantly higher than what the manufacturer made for their effort.
Instead, I’d really recommend donating the money to an action group or trusted charity, ideally if you can also verify they are doing actual things on the ground.
In my experience, exported goods provide very little profit to the original manufacturer. The middle layers greedily absorb all the profit. In fact, in the west, labor costs to stock/sell it in the supermarket are significantly higher than what the manufacturer made for their effort.
Instead, I’d really recommend donating the money to an action group or trusted charity, ideally if you can also verify they are doing actual things on the ground.
It is hard to do from the US. I can donate directly to my family and have them give to local aid groups but have not been able to donate directly except to groups that have a US presence (and no doubt much higher aid overhead).
But longer term, having Sri Lanka goods be valued on the world market will help the island. Dilmah employs a lot of people on the island.
But longer term, having Sri Lanka goods be valued on the world market will help the island. Dilmah employs a lot of people on the island.
Cancelled flights, fuel shortages and street violence aren't helping the tourism sector.
> It is a truly lovely country, with good tourism facilities.
Not to mention the people. Absolute wonderful human beings despite years of war and turmoil.
Not to mention the people. Absolute wonderful human beings despite years of war and turmoil.
> As the article notes the government forced the food production to go all organic in one year with no plan, [...]
Because spending on fertilizer was a lot of their foreign currency spending, and the government thought "We'll just force 'organic farming' so our spending will look better!".
Because spending on fertilizer was a lot of their foreign currency spending, and the government thought "We'll just force 'organic farming' so our spending will look better!".
I'm looking forward to going back in a year or so, when the situation stabilises.
My risk appetite is significantly higher than the average tourist, but even I'm not stupid enough to go there right now when there's the potential for things to get much worse, very quickly.
My risk appetite is significantly higher than the average tourist, but even I'm not stupid enough to go there right now when there's the potential for things to get much worse, very quickly.
Population grew.
In Japan agriculture is heavily subsidized, in particular rice production. Stuff that is not heavily subsidized focuses on high margin premium. They can't compete on volume/price but can on quality. After eating expensive apples or grapes there nothing really compares anywhere else
In Japan agriculture is heavily subsidized, in particular rice production. Stuff that is not heavily subsidized focuses on high margin premium. They can't compete on volume/price but can on quality. After eating expensive apples or grapes there nothing really compares anywhere else
That’s my point about Japan.
Rice, unlike tea, is a defensive measure for times of crisis. Even as Japan imports food, the point is whether the country can quickly mobilize and ramp up to essential food crops. The point is having options and a hedge, which allows you leverage during economic negotiations for other things.
The percentage of imports you can have should be bounded by the runway and time horizon you have.
It seems Sri Lanka went all in on one crop without a hedge, and it would infeasibly take years to convert.
Rice, unlike tea, is a defensive measure for times of crisis. Even as Japan imports food, the point is whether the country can quickly mobilize and ramp up to essential food crops. The point is having options and a hedge, which allows you leverage during economic negotiations for other things.
The percentage of imports you can have should be bounded by the runway and time horizon you have.
It seems Sri Lanka went all in on one crop without a hedge, and it would infeasibly take years to convert.
Same deal in Norway where I live. We maintain an agricultural sector in a rocky subarctic climate at exorbitant prices which probably makes Japanese agriculture look like a bargain.
We have had enough bad experiences in the past however to give up having some level of self-sufficiency.
If you ever wondered why nearly every European country is in the EU, except Norway well there you got part of it he reason.
We have had enough bad experiences in the past however to give up having some level of self-sufficiency.
If you ever wondered why nearly every European country is in the EU, except Norway well there you got part of it he reason.
> If you ever wondered why nearly every European country is in the EU
There are many others, to be fair: Iceland, Switzerland, most of the Balkans, parts of Eastern Europe, the UK, and at least 5 microstates.
There are many others, to be fair: Iceland, Switzerland, most of the Balkans, parts of Eastern Europe, the UK, and at least 5 microstates.
Sorry, from your comment I did not understand why Norway is not part of the EU. Would you mind clarifying?
Are you saying EU membership could affect Norway's agriculture?
Are you saying EU membership could affect Norway's agriculture?
The common agricultural policy is a clusterfuck.
Well, not from producing copious quantities of tea. Globalization meant they (thought they) could specialize in growing tea and let someone else specialize in growing food. In theory - everyone wins.
In theory yes, but in practise, you cannot completely 100% specialize without taking on an asymmetric risk (that of the outside party not selling you food due to their own or some other crisis).
The risk is asymmetric because your specialty (tea) isn't an absolute necessity (may be 'cept to the brits), and yet, you _need_ food (an absolute necessity).
The risk is asymmetric because your specialty (tea) isn't an absolute necessity (may be 'cept to the brits), and yet, you _need_ food (an absolute necessity).
Sri Lanka was self-sufficient in rice as recently as a few years ago. Banning fertiliser cut yields by 35%.
https://www.canr.msu.edu/prci/publications/Policy-Research-N...
https://www.canr.msu.edu/prci/publications/Policy-Research-N...
> Has Sri Lanka’s fish been pillaged
The fishermen can no longer afford or acquire fuel for their boats to go out and catch the fish. Due to the non fish related economic disaster outlined in the article.
The fishermen can no longer afford or acquire fuel for their boats to go out and catch the fish. Due to the non fish related economic disaster outlined in the article.
They need fuel because they need boats that go far. They need to go far because the supply of fish has decreased.
Fishing is not a modern activity. Rafts existed long before people rode horses.
Fishing is not a modern activity. Rafts existed long before people rode horses.
And in some very poor locations people do fish by sail and rowing, but even in some of the lowest income countries on earth, using small petrol engines is increasingly common (source: buying local seafood in Sierra Leone some years back).
> using small petrol engines is increasingly common (source: buying local seafood
Right, because the locals have changed from fishing for themselves to fishing for others. This is market economy dynamics of engaging in activity that produces the most money.
Right, because the locals have changed from fishing for themselves to fishing for others. This is market economy dynamics of engaging in activity that produces the most money.
At least where I was buying fish it was all for domestic consumption in the Freetown metro area. Very little or none of it was being caught to be frozen or canned.
You also don’t need fuel to go to work, commuting is a modern activity. With COVID and the increase in fuel prices, we should /all/ work from home and let civilisation crumble.
/s
/s
>How did these island nations sustain themselves before ? In other words, what has changed that they can’t live off the land anymore? And by that, I mean the sea.
Well the chemical fertilizer ban means no living off the land. ~85% of the farms are expected to fail or have failed.
>Has Sri Lanka’s fish been pillaged? Is it being exported to wealthier nations that command higher prices, even as there is a domestic food crisis?
No, they have tremendous inflation(54.6%) and therefore fishermen cant afford fuel to go get those fish. Major fuel shortages means no eating food in sri lanka.
https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/south-asia/article/3172540/pl...
>How much of this is because of globalism and developing hard dependencies? I’ve traveled to all 47 of Japan’s prefectures and I still see bountiful agriculture in the countryside. Even as developed and wealthy as Japan is, with many global dependencies in imports/exports, it is still heavily invested in agriculture.
It's not dependencies persay but rather yes globalists are entirely at fault. This is the work of Davos/WEF.
https://www.sundaytimes.lk/180902/news/pm-this-is-how-i-will...
This used to be an article on WEF but they deleted it because obviously WEF is responsible for what is happening in Sri Lanka 100%.
The funny thing about the WEF conspiracies or for that matter the sri lanka politicians didnt see the trap they were falling into. Personally I dont believe WEF has done anything, they just convince stupid politicians to do stupid things.
Sri Lanka believed and even achieved an ESG score of over 95, beating most countries.
Well the chemical fertilizer ban means no living off the land. ~85% of the farms are expected to fail or have failed.
>Has Sri Lanka’s fish been pillaged? Is it being exported to wealthier nations that command higher prices, even as there is a domestic food crisis?
No, they have tremendous inflation(54.6%) and therefore fishermen cant afford fuel to go get those fish. Major fuel shortages means no eating food in sri lanka.
https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/south-asia/article/3172540/pl...
>How much of this is because of globalism and developing hard dependencies? I’ve traveled to all 47 of Japan’s prefectures and I still see bountiful agriculture in the countryside. Even as developed and wealthy as Japan is, with many global dependencies in imports/exports, it is still heavily invested in agriculture.
It's not dependencies persay but rather yes globalists are entirely at fault. This is the work of Davos/WEF.
https://www.sundaytimes.lk/180902/news/pm-this-is-how-i-will...
This used to be an article on WEF but they deleted it because obviously WEF is responsible for what is happening in Sri Lanka 100%.
The funny thing about the WEF conspiracies or for that matter the sri lanka politicians didnt see the trap they were falling into. Personally I dont believe WEF has done anything, they just convince stupid politicians to do stupid things.
Sri Lanka believed and even achieved an ESG score of over 95, beating most countries.
Before globalized trade, nations sustained themselves in ways we today see as extreme poverty.
Most countries are simply not meant to have as many people as they do. Its an aberration of history brought about by easy and cheap accessibility to fertilizers, genetically modified crops, and cheap oceanic transport.
The true cost of feeding the world is much higher once you take away the subsidies and security architecture that makes all of the above possible.
The true cost of feeding the world is much higher once you take away the subsidies and security architecture that makes all of the above possible.
> How did these islandnations sustain themselves before ?
They didn't. At least by today's standards. The poorest parts of the world have become immensely richer over the past 50 years. In the 80s it was still common to have famines that could wipe out millions in a small area.
Despite a massive population growth in the world's poorest areas, such famines basically don't exist anymore.
They didn't. At least by today's standards. The poorest parts of the world have become immensely richer over the past 50 years. In the 80s it was still common to have famines that could wipe out millions in a small area.
Despite a massive population growth in the world's poorest areas, such famines basically don't exist anymore.
not 100% sure.. my guess is that they depended upon tourism and it was severely impacted by the pandemic.
For Sri Lanka, the right thing to have been done (in hindsight) is to keep the country open for tourism and disregard covid impact. Kind of like Texas/Florida.
They had to choose between the lesser of the two evils. This is a hard decision to make.
For Sri Lanka, the right thing to have been done (in hindsight) is to keep the country open for tourism and disregard covid impact. Kind of like Texas/Florida.
They had to choose between the lesser of the two evils. This is a hard decision to make.
> the right thing to have been done (in hindsight) is to keep the country open for tourism and disregard covid impact.
but even if they did, would tourists still be arriving? I suppose if the leaders thought that the human toll is worth keeping the economy alive - but then again, they wouldn't have mandated "organic" farming if they could come to that conclusion.
And in any case, the inflation and war in ukraine raising fuel prices would not have been helped by tourism imho. A double whammy isn't easy to recover or prevent tbh.
but even if they did, would tourists still be arriving? I suppose if the leaders thought that the human toll is worth keeping the economy alive - but then again, they wouldn't have mandated "organic" farming if they could come to that conclusion.
And in any case, the inflation and war in ukraine raising fuel prices would not have been helped by tourism imho. A double whammy isn't easy to recover or prevent tbh.
Their healthcare system would not have coped - as things were, it was pretty much at breaking point.
Also, the rest of the world had curbs on travel, which would have made it non viable anyway.
Also, the rest of the world had curbs on travel, which would have made it non viable anyway.
The root of all problems in these neocolonized nations is corruption. The colonizing entity (ie the dictator or the “political family” or the king) are absorbing all the profits and eliminating cushions which would otherwise help promote recovery and stability.
And they're corrupt because they were made to be when they were originally colonized. The people put in charge by foreign empires were not chosen for their commitment to democratic governance.
Here's a Sri Lankan giving an in-depth analysis about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpZ5oiUGqW4. I like this guy, think he's got good opinions.
I decided to hear him out and I completed the entire video.
In short, he blames current crisis to mix of corrupt politicians, mismgmt. of foreign loans and predatory lending by West. He proposes SL to become more industrialized and integrate itself in Asia's monetary system rather than West.
This is very insightful well-balanced commentary, and counterpoint to simpler explanations like Rajapaksa's corruption, China's influence, or organic farming, as the primary cause.
This is not a very good take. His solution is for SL to join a China led block that somehow has India and China as allies?
I’m surprised he didn’t mention tourism in the video while mentioning foreign remittances as a source of forex.
agree he has an interesting take and makes some good points.
Sri Lankan economy was, and still is, heavily dependent on thriving tourism [1](which accounts for 12% of the total GDP[2]). COVID-19 devastated the industry.
There are several other reasons, involving bad policies and bad rulers, but that was one of the main reasons for the sudden implosion.
[1] https://www.ft.lk/article/1778/Tourism-%E2%80%93-Engine-of-g...
[2] https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/how-tourism-in-sri-la...
There are several other reasons, involving bad policies and bad rulers, but that was one of the main reasons for the sudden implosion.
[1] https://www.ft.lk/article/1778/Tourism-%E2%80%93-Engine-of-g...
[2] https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/how-tourism-in-sri-la...
Must read on the Sri Lankan Economic crisis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%93present_Sri_Lanka...
It was a series of events, all mistakes done and compounded by the Rajapaksa clan over decades in power. All their assets need to be seized/frozen, Everyone of them need to be brought back to the country, made to stand trial and put in jail for ruining the country.
It was a series of events, all mistakes done and compounded by the Rajapaksa clan over decades in power. All their assets need to be seized/frozen, Everyone of them need to be brought back to the country, made to stand trial and put in jail for ruining the country.
When an entity fails this hard and the internet I consume is suddenly flooded with articles about it, I can't help but think: ok, who fucked them over?
Who are the biggest "friends" of Sri Lanka? The US, China? Who profits from a weaker Sri Lanka. That's the real question. I know this site has people from all over, so I'd love to read more from the people who are NOT on the other side of the world.
Who are the biggest "friends" of Sri Lanka? The US, China? Who profits from a weaker Sri Lanka. That's the real question. I know this site has people from all over, so I'd love to read more from the people who are NOT on the other side of the world.
This is something i see a lot in conspiratorial thinking, you can't believe a government would be so incompetent, so somebody MUST be behind it and have caused this maliciously. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
There's nothing "conspiratorial" about assuming fundamental principles of human behavior, even baked into neoclassical economics (which you might also subscribe to) and any realist political theory. Not only that but real conspiracies at this level happen almost constantly[1], John Bolton just admitted being involved in some yesterday on CNN[2]. Don't be dismissive and condescending, especially when it's quite possible you're wrong.
1. https://github.com/binka/essays/blob/master/us_atrocities.md
2. https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/154695519704541593...
1. https://github.com/binka/essays/blob/master/us_atrocities.md
2. https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/154695519704541593...
The organic movement that led to a nationwide chemical fertiliser ban is in fact part of a CIA operation to destabilise food-insecure nations.
> The organic movement that led to a nationwide chemical fertiliser ban is in fact part of a CIA operation to destabilise food-insecure nations.
This is absurd... I grant you that the CIA is in the business of destabilizing nations and use the World bank and IMF to that end, but what possible proof do you have that this is the case? It's clear to see that myopic policy (even I as a former Biodynamic farmer thought this transition was absurd) coupled with nepotism and a currency crisis due to COVID which directly impeded their ability to source fertilizer on the open market as the Russian invasion took place is what created their downfall.
This all seeing boggy-G-man narrative is of CCP levels of hysteria!
This is absurd... I grant you that the CIA is in the business of destabilizing nations and use the World bank and IMF to that end, but what possible proof do you have that this is the case? It's clear to see that myopic policy (even I as a former Biodynamic farmer thought this transition was absurd) coupled with nepotism and a currency crisis due to COVID which directly impeded their ability to source fertilizer on the open market as the Russian invasion took place is what created their downfall.
This all seeing boggy-G-man narrative is of CCP levels of hysteria!
> what possible proof do you have that this is the case?
None, I made it up.
None, I made it up.
I wouldn't know but it wouldn't be the weirdest thing they've done.
There is no point in arguing against American government's actions on a forum almost completely populated by Americans.
Everyone really. Sri Lanka sold a naval base and large part of Colombo harbor to China plus the massive debts, refineries and power plants to India (who have a monopoly on gasoline) and LNG storage and power plants to the US.
Notionally Pakistan is their friend too but they are in no shape to be bailing out anyone.
There are many countries who are next in line may be a bit more more self sufficient and with relatively less bigoted people.
Everything starts when people elect leaders based on hatred instead of good governance. Citizens of Srilanka or any of the countries that may follow the same step cannot just blame this cronies and escape. People needs to self realize their part.
Everything starts when people elect leaders based on hatred instead of good governance. Citizens of Srilanka or any of the countries that may follow the same step cannot just blame this cronies and escape. People needs to self realize their part.
Surreal how quickly it can all collapse.
I was there in December 2021. There were some extra long queues at petrol stations, but nothing too out of the ordinary.
Incredibly beautiful country and very generous, friendly people. Hope they see better times.
I was there in December 2021. There were some extra long queues at petrol stations, but nothing too out of the ordinary.
Incredibly beautiful country and very generous, friendly people. Hope they see better times.
Because of Islamophobia people elected known corrupt leaders, who made all the bad decisions possible. The pandemic and Ukraine war unraveled it all.
Lol.. Islamophobia started after bombings. These leaders were there way before. Don't just link all political issues to Islamophobia.
2019 elections are won post Easter bombings. They were there before but the super majority they were able to get is because of Islamophobia.
Right, the explosive event where the "easter worshippers" (so-called because the media was allergic to calling them Christians) became un-alived; Muslims most effected.
Maybe churches will need to install the kind of security fixtures commonly found furnishing synagogues in Europe. It generally does the job of keeping pathetic misanthropes who think it's good to bomb religious communities out on the curb where they belong, to issue empty threats and get carried away to a nice new home.
Maybe churches will need to install the kind of security fixtures commonly found furnishing synagogues in Europe. It generally does the job of keeping pathetic misanthropes who think it's good to bomb religious communities out on the curb where they belong, to issue empty threats and get carried away to a nice new home.
Some of the bombings occurred in hotels favoured by Chinese and Western tourists. Including two that I've stayed in regularly on visits.
Or anti-Tamil. The Islamophobia is sort of new, since the Easter bombing, but the Rajapaksas have been authoritarian for much longer than that.
In some countries, Islamophobia is a valid and justifiable fear because there is a real threat of Islamists doing bombings and taking power. Hard to distinguish a non-political Muslim from an Islamist since they share so many beliefs and interests.
I see a lot of parallels with Sri Lanka and Turkey. Dwindling foreign exchange reserves, crashing value of the Turkish Lira, trade deficit, arbitrary decision making, etc. Makes me scared for Turkey's future...
The paragraph starting with the sentence "So why is an exchange rate peg a mistake? It’s not necessarily a bad thing — it can help create financial stability. But if you peg your exchange rate at a too-high level, you’re setting your country up for disaster," is a good explainer for the cryptocurrency crisis too, especially those coins that pegged them selves against the dollar.
> I do not understand why Sri Lanka did this very dumb thing.
I thought the reason was that Sri Lanka's fertilizer and pesticide supplies were all imported, and were therefore contributing to the BoP crisis. I'm not for a moment suggesting the ban wasn't dumb!
The Rajapaksa family are a bunch of cruel, racist, venal despots. I fail to understand why Sri Lankans kept electing them to power.
I thought the reason was that Sri Lanka's fertilizer and pesticide supplies were all imported, and were therefore contributing to the BoP crisis. I'm not for a moment suggesting the ban wasn't dumb!
The Rajapaksa family are a bunch of cruel, racist, venal despots. I fail to understand why Sri Lankans kept electing them to power.
Literally was just watching something on this from the excellent Breaking Points show https://youtu.be/Tdnr3wOzymE
First of probably many countries that will fall victim to the high dollar price.
Don't get me wrong; it is necessary for the US stop the inflation spiral, in particular now that it is in a defacto war with Russia (whos resource rich economy benifits from inflation).
But imagine having your loans/expenses in US dollars and your income in Japanese yen.
https://www.tradingview.com/symbols/USDJPY/
Don't get me wrong; it is necessary for the US stop the inflation spiral, in particular now that it is in a defacto war with Russia (whos resource rich economy benifits from inflation).
But imagine having your loans/expenses in US dollars and your income in Japanese yen.
https://www.tradingview.com/symbols/USDJPY/
I would love to go deeper into the rabbit hole here.
What is MIA in the Sri Lanka discussion is the underlying reasons for the situation.
It seems one of them was misguided govt policy, in that they banned common fertilizers in favor of ESG-friendly fertilizer. It seems said fertilizer collapsed output, which meant less exports, less hard currency to import (late on the game) regular fertilizer.
I still sont know why ESG was favored. I also dont know what was the upside for sri Lanka to do this.
What is MIA in the Sri Lanka discussion is the underlying reasons for the situation.
It seems one of them was misguided govt policy, in that they banned common fertilizers in favor of ESG-friendly fertilizer. It seems said fertilizer collapsed output, which meant less exports, less hard currency to import (late on the game) regular fertilizer.
I still sont know why ESG was favored. I also dont know what was the upside for sri Lanka to do this.
"ESG is an acronym for Environmental, Social, and Governance. ESG takes the holistic view that sustainability extends beyond just environmental issues."
Nothing so sophisticated. No money left for fertilizer, no fertilizer. Dressing it up as "ESG" or "organic" amounts to blame-shifting.
Nothing so sophisticated. No money left for fertilizer, no fertilizer. Dressing it up as "ESG" or "organic" amounts to blame-shifting.
Right! And Sri Lanka was one of the top ranked countries in the world according to ESG score.
They wanted to appeal to Blackrock and their insane ESG rating.
They wanted to appeal to Blackrock and their insane ESG rating.
At times it seems like I’m reading about Argentina. The problem is that people just sit around complaining until the crisis hits lvl 9000 to go out and throw a brick. It’s like boiling a frog. Argentina is the same way. And by then, it’s too late. In a weird way, sometimes I think these moments of touching bottom are needed for change to happen.
It seems weird to me to describe this as a "currency crisis". The post pretty plainly describes an actual crisis:
> Production of tea -- Sri Lanka's main cash crop -- fell by 18% in a year. Production of rice -- the main food crop -- fell by even more.
The problem isn't the currency.
> Production of tea -- Sri Lanka's main cash crop -- fell by 18% in a year. Production of rice -- the main food crop -- fell by even more.
The problem isn't the currency.
Sri Lanka's immediate problem is not lack of tea or rice, it's that they're out of money and can't pay for imports of essentials like fuel. In other words, a currency crisis.
They're not making enough money to pay for imports because they're not producing enough. If they were producing enough then they wouldn't need to borrow money to pay for imports, so the cost of borrowing wouldn't matter.
Very good analysis for us non economists. It gives many details and a credible explanation on what went/is going wrong in plain words.
This is common knowledge that organics crops yields way less food than pesticide-based ones.
I have a hard time believing in such a gross mistake.
I have a hard time believing in such a gross mistake.
I read this right as I woke up and thought this was a crisis that Sri Lanka’s school textbooks were way out of date.
Sri Lanka seems to be having a lot of problems lately. Is it really just policy or those that make or enforce them?
Don't worry the WEF are going to turn them into a superpower by 2025
https://web.archive.org/web/20190122012624/https://www.wefor...
https://web.archive.org/web/20190122012624/https://www.wefor...
I read this headline as “Sri Lanka is in crisis because their school textbooks are way out of day” smh
We are seeing a similar situation here in Pakistan :/ Feels scary!
Sri Lanka is the first of possibly many countries to fall or suffer serious consequences in the next year or two.
Inflation, coupled with a rally in the strength of the US Dollar, is going to push many smaller nations into resource shortages and ultimately towards revolution.
Even many of the major world currencies are doing poorly. The Euro is tanking(back to parity with the dollar, for now, but it may go lower). The Yen is in trouble. We may need another Plaza Accord. There is also a very real risk that we see populist governments come to power across the EU and much of the world.
If you think the recession and upheaval is getting ready to be over with you need to take a deep dive into the macro world and see what's happening. Bank runs and a major economic collapse in China. Brazil and India cozying up to Russia for oil, with Europe and Japan utterly dependent upon them as well. Industry in Germany and much of the EU about to grind to a halt.
Inflation, coupled with a rally in the strength of the US Dollar, is going to push many smaller nations into resource shortages and ultimately towards revolution.
Even many of the major world currencies are doing poorly. The Euro is tanking(back to parity with the dollar, for now, but it may go lower). The Yen is in trouble. We may need another Plaza Accord. There is also a very real risk that we see populist governments come to power across the EU and much of the world.
If you think the recession and upheaval is getting ready to be over with you need to take a deep dive into the macro world and see what's happening. Bank runs and a major economic collapse in China. Brazil and India cozying up to Russia for oil, with Europe and Japan utterly dependent upon them as well. Industry in Germany and much of the EU about to grind to a halt.
Your last point on EU industry is something I do not see taken seriously by any government, and it looks like it os going to be a real crash. I am amazed at the lack of strong actions from the governments, other than mere politics.
>Industry in Germany and much of the EU about to grind to a halt.
It's been striking how little discussion there is of this in /r/europe and /r/germany. (The latter has pinned a megathread for the topic, the classic way of killing discussion.) /r/de is slightly better, if only because of the absence of the constant "I don't know German but want to move to Germany and get a job" posts.
I don't mean to say that there's been nothing, along the lines of the 100% censorship that happened at /r/news the day of the 2016 Orlando mass shooter. There has been some. But there is far, far, far less. Just this week we've had
* a German minister stating that becoming dependent on Russian gas was a "grievous mistake", and that his country is begging for turbines from Canada "with a heavy heart"
* His government stating that entire industries might "collapse"
* Rationing of gas announced
* Local municipalities planning warm buildings that those without heat in their homes can visit during the winter
This is the greatest German catastrophe in 80 years. It is an existential threat to the German (and, thus, European) economy and nation. Any other topic half as serious would occupy far more of these subreddits' front pages.
It's been striking how little discussion there is of this in /r/europe and /r/germany. (The latter has pinned a megathread for the topic, the classic way of killing discussion.) /r/de is slightly better, if only because of the absence of the constant "I don't know German but want to move to Germany and get a job" posts.
I don't mean to say that there's been nothing, along the lines of the 100% censorship that happened at /r/news the day of the 2016 Orlando mass shooter. There has been some. But there is far, far, far less. Just this week we've had
* a German minister stating that becoming dependent on Russian gas was a "grievous mistake", and that his country is begging for turbines from Canada "with a heavy heart"
* His government stating that entire industries might "collapse"
* Rationing of gas announced
* Local municipalities planning warm buildings that those without heat in their homes can visit during the winter
This is the greatest German catastrophe in 80 years. It is an existential threat to the German (and, thus, European) economy and nation. Any other topic half as serious would occupy far more of these subreddits' front pages.
> It's been striking how little discussion there is of this in /r/europe and /r/germany.
I suspect it's because most Germans don't hang out there and those forums are populated mostly by expats.
I suspect it's because most Germans don't hang out there and those forums are populated mostly by expats.
I am aware of that regarding /r/germany (thus my mention of the constant "I want to move to Germany" posts); that said, there is no shortage of English-language news coverage of the issue. Same for /r/europe.
While I do not have personal experience with /r/germany's moderators as I do with /r/europe's, if they are similar (likely, given how much inbreeding there is in big subreddits' mod teams), I suspect that submissions of said news coverage is being suppressed to avoid blurring The Message(TM).
While I do not have personal experience with /r/germany's moderators as I do with /r/europe's, if they are similar (likely, given how much inbreeding there is in big subreddits' mod teams), I suspect that submissions of said news coverage is being suppressed to avoid blurring The Message(TM).
Wow, looks like you got quite a lot of downvotes. I'm guessing it's just an emotional reaction because your post is accurate. The Germans will have to cozy up to the Russians and/or burn one hell of a lot of coal and trees to make it through the winter. They'd be doing better if it wasn't for the major accident which took out the main US LNG export terminal a month ago.
> There is also a very real risk that we see populist governments come to power across the EU and much of the world.
Ouch. I find the current ones already pretty populist.
Ouch. I find the current ones already pretty populist.
[deleted]
anonymousiam(2)
Victerius(3)
Oh, Belt and Road turning developing nations into debt slaves? Say it ain't so...
Perhaps a dumb question: why does every little country need its own currency? Are they all just addicted to printing money?
Ignoring the volatility and environmental concerns, why shouldn’t all these small to medium-sized countries standardize on a cryptocurrency?
Ignoring the volatility and environmental concerns, why shouldn’t all these small to medium-sized countries standardize on a cryptocurrency?
> why does every little country need its own currency? Are they all just addicted to printing money?
Controlling your money supply can be needed to improve your country's position with regard to foreign trade. Greece would probably have been better able to manage its recent debt crisis had it controlled its own currency rather than being tied to the Euro, for example.
> Ignoring the volatility and environmental concerns, why shouldn’t all these small to medium-sized countries standardize on a cryptocurrency?
Because people still need to be able to transact with something, which is not a function well-served by cryptocurrencies, most of which have the bulk of trade in them carried on off-chain or via stablecoins that track a fiat currency.
Controlling your money supply can be needed to improve your country's position with regard to foreign trade. Greece would probably have been better able to manage its recent debt crisis had it controlled its own currency rather than being tied to the Euro, for example.
> Ignoring the volatility and environmental concerns, why shouldn’t all these small to medium-sized countries standardize on a cryptocurrency?
Because people still need to be able to transact with something, which is not a function well-served by cryptocurrencies, most of which have the bulk of trade in them carried on off-chain or via stablecoins that track a fiat currency.
> Controlling your money supply can be needed to improve your country's position with regard to foreign trade.
This is basically protectionism, an economic theory that has been debunked time after time. If it were true, then why doesn't it hold true for individual states within a country? And while we are at it, why not a currency for every city or neighborhood?
> Because people still need to be able to transact with something, which is not a function well-served by cryptocurrencies, most of which have the bulk of trade in them carried on off-chain or via stablecoins that track a fiat currency.
Those same systems could simply add support for cryptocurrency. Paypal did a few months ago (not sure if they enabled merchant support or p2p transfers, but there's no technical barrier preventing them to do so). Credit cards could also add crypto to the long list of currencies they already support. Etc.
This is basically protectionism, an economic theory that has been debunked time after time. If it were true, then why doesn't it hold true for individual states within a country? And while we are at it, why not a currency for every city or neighborhood?
> Because people still need to be able to transact with something, which is not a function well-served by cryptocurrencies, most of which have the bulk of trade in them carried on off-chain or via stablecoins that track a fiat currency.
Those same systems could simply add support for cryptocurrency. Paypal did a few months ago (not sure if they enabled merchant support or p2p transfers, but there's no technical barrier preventing them to do so). Credit cards could also add crypto to the long list of currencies they already support. Etc.
> Because people still need to be able to transact with something, which is not a function well-served by cryptocurrencies, most of which have the bulk of trade in them carried on off-chain or via stablecoins that track a fiat currency.
That’s a bit like saying the dollar isn’t a suitable currency because most transactions don’t happen directly through the Federal Reserve. Most people would transact through “layer 2” systems like Lightning, or even paper currency issued by one or more countries but backed by cryptocurrency reserves.
The cryptocurrency bit is to allow mutually distrusting countries to standardize on a single currency, if that’s something that might be valuable.
That’s a bit like saying the dollar isn’t a suitable currency because most transactions don’t happen directly through the Federal Reserve. Most people would transact through “layer 2” systems like Lightning, or even paper currency issued by one or more countries but backed by cryptocurrency reserves.
The cryptocurrency bit is to allow mutually distrusting countries to standardize on a single currency, if that’s something that might be valuable.
Sri Lanka doesn’t have a currency problem. There population doubled since 1960 and they never industrialized.
They simply don’t make anything to sell that has value other than tourism and natural resources.
Trade imbalance has been an issue for decades and they simply hid the problem by taking out loans.
They have simply run out of credit.
My two cents
They simply don’t make anything to sell that has value other than tourism and natural resources.
Trade imbalance has been an issue for decades and they simply hid the problem by taking out loans.
They have simply run out of credit.
My two cents
But it's not just that. With a free economy the problem would sort-of have solved itself, as there are a lot of poorer countries that don't have currency crises.
To get as screwed up as this you can only achieve with centralized planning, where a single decisionmaker mistake can mess up the sustenance of millions.
To get as screwed up as this you can only achieve with centralized planning, where a single decisionmaker mistake can mess up the sustenance of millions.
What? Japan, South Korea and China are examples of planned industrialization.
Hard to industrialise when you are busy fighting a war on your own soil tbh.
Good chunks of the North are still somewhat off limits and fucking littered with landmines too.
Good chunks of the North are still somewhat off limits and fucking littered with landmines too.
Most countries are better off with a money supply that can adapt to local economic conditions (local unemployment and inflation). Having a fixed currency prevents that. During economic crises, it is critical to be able to increase the money supply.
Also, most countries end up managing their currency reasonably well (better than having a fixed money supply). Sri Lanka is in the news for failing, but most nations are quietly doing reasonably well.
Also, most countries end up managing their currency reasonably well (better than having a fixed money supply). Sri Lanka is in the news for failing, but most nations are quietly doing reasonably well.
The whole purpose of fiat currency is so the central bank can literally dictate interest rates and "print money" in times of crisis. Pegging currencies to the USD has been tried and usually fails.
> Pegging currencies to the USD has been tried and usually fails.
Do you have a source to back that up? I can think of many countries where it was done successfully (e.g. Hong Kong, UAE, Panama, etc.).
Do you have a source to back that up? I can think of many countries where it was done successfully (e.g. Hong Kong, UAE, Panama, etc.).
Fiat lets your currency grow with your economy.
Lots of deflation or inflation has bad effects by influencing how people spend.
Lots of deflation or inflation has bad effects by influencing how people spend.
>Perhaps a dumb question: why does every little country need its own currency? Are they all just addicted to printing money?
Because money has a liquidity premium that allows you to disregard location, to make money less liquid you have to bind it to a national economy, otherwise buyers might decide to only import products from a handful countries. Look at Greece they run a trade deficit because German products are cheaper, this means Greek debt is impossible to unwind until Germany starts importing from Greece.
Because money has a liquidity premium that allows you to disregard location, to make money less liquid you have to bind it to a national economy, otherwise buyers might decide to only import products from a handful countries. Look at Greece they run a trade deficit because German products are cheaper, this means Greek debt is impossible to unwind until Germany starts importing from Greece.
and so who controls that crypto? The biggest country of the group? Or the wealthiest?
What happens if one of the countries needs to print some money to get out of a bind?
What happens if external countries don't want to receive the crypto in exchange for imports/exports?
I dont think crypto makes any of the above any better than an existing currency owned by the fiat banking system.
What happens if one of the countries needs to print some money to get out of a bind?
What happens if external countries don't want to receive the crypto in exchange for imports/exports?
I dont think crypto makes any of the above any better than an existing currency owned by the fiat banking system.
Having your own currency is what lets you adjust the exchange between your country and another one. You should never use a currency you don’t control or cannot influence in any way. That sets you up for disaster.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Quite a lot of the smaller countries just use the US dollar.
Only rich countries can afford to peg their currencies.
Even then, not a good idea for them, hence very few rich countries do it (unless they are very small).
Controlling interest rates is incredibly important, especially in times of crisis. If you were pegged to the USD right now (which is skyrocketing relative to most other currencies), you would be in trouble.
Controlling interest rates is incredibly important, especially in times of crisis. If you were pegged to the USD right now (which is skyrocketing relative to most other currencies), you would be in trouble.
You can peg your currency down but you can't peg it up without external energy i.e. debt.
Any level headed person, forget a politician, would want to experiment first, see the results, gauge and then expand selectively. That is common sense.
I guess when you are a dictator ish government and you rule the country with an iron first, the institutions of the state stop being anything and simply become rubber stamps.
This also underlines the importance of self sufficiency in necessities. A country ought to feed its people, provide basic services like power and medical facilities on its own, without depending on imports.