Turkey's Financial Crisis(adamtooze.substack.com)
adamtooze.substack.com
Turkey's Financial Crisis
https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-63-turkeys-financial-crisis
206 comments
> Islam was acceptable (as Turkey was attempting to be a "free" republic), but not compulsory.
Until Erdogan overturned it, there was a ban on women wearing hijab (the head covering , that the vast majority of Muslims consider a basic tenet of their religion) in universities in Turkey. I leave the judgment to you, but personally I wouldn't consider asking millions of people to choose between adhering to their religion and getting a higher education to be treating their religion as "acceptable, just not compulsary".
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11880622
Until Erdogan overturned it, there was a ban on women wearing hijab (the head covering , that the vast majority of Muslims consider a basic tenet of their religion) in universities in Turkey. I leave the judgment to you, but personally I wouldn't consider asking millions of people to choose between adhering to their religion and getting a higher education to be treating their religion as "acceptable, just not compulsary".
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11880622
I would feel extremely comfortable banning those head coverings from all universities, if not all public venues. Religious vestment simply has no place outside of ritual occasions. But then again, I'm from the country Atatürk took after. From our point of view, allowing religion to exist is treating it with tolerance. Acknowledging religion as something that deserves any sort of deference by the State isn't acceptable. And I say that as an otherwise religious person myself (don't take it as the stance of some rabid atheist).
> I would feel extremely comfortable banning those head coverings from all universities, if not all public venues...From our point of view, allowing religion to exist is treating it with tolerance.
If saying "either stop adhering to your religion or you cannot go to university/exist in public" is tolerance, what is intolerance? Is everything short of prison, internment camps, torture, and execution tolerance in your point of view?
Also, if a government tells religious people "we are going to make your life very difficult, but you should really be thankful to us that we are not outright destroying you", they should not be surprised when they don't end up being thankful and instead vote for the other guy. That's one of the reasons Erdogan is now in power.
If saying "either stop adhering to your religion or you cannot go to university/exist in public" is tolerance, what is intolerance? Is everything short of prison, internment camps, torture, and execution tolerance in your point of view?
Also, if a government tells religious people "we are going to make your life very difficult, but you should really be thankful to us that we are not outright destroying you", they should not be surprised when they don't end up being thankful and instead vote for the other guy. That's one of the reasons Erdogan is now in power.
The assumption that asking for the removal of what is essentially discriminatory somptuary laws amounts to asking for apostasy is your own. Internal religious regulations have no bearing on the law and whether or not they're essential to religious practice is of no consequence to civil society. Keep in mind I'm referring to a system where universities are public institutions, emanations of the State, rather than private foundations as is usually the case in the US.
Why would your secularism turn you into fashion police?
Why cannot a person wear a headscarf (it does not obscure their mouth or eyes so does not inhibit communication) if they want to? For what ever private reason they feel they want to?
I know people who wear them for non-religious reasons. Will they be exempt from your rules about fashion?
People get told all the time that what they wear is unacceptable by others in power, and it is an abuse of power. This is particularly true for women and a "headscarf" ban another example of blatant misogyny.
What is particularly offensive is it is said it is one for "liberating" those women. Often (usually not always) it is non Islamic people lecturing Islamists.
The fight against misogyny in Islam is a fight for Islamic women. When there is a cry from Islamic women for non-Islamists to set fashion laws for Islamic women to obey (and not just the odd lone voice) then maybe, possible you might have a point. Is that ever going to happen?
I do not think that Islamic women need misogynist, sexist, Islamophobic, theophobic, bigoted, and patronising rules and punishment. To liberate them, no less! Perhaps they need the opposite
Why cannot a person wear a headscarf (it does not obscure their mouth or eyes so does not inhibit communication) if they want to? For what ever private reason they feel they want to?
I know people who wear them for non-religious reasons. Will they be exempt from your rules about fashion?
People get told all the time that what they wear is unacceptable by others in power, and it is an abuse of power. This is particularly true for women and a "headscarf" ban another example of blatant misogyny.
What is particularly offensive is it is said it is one for "liberating" those women. Often (usually not always) it is non Islamic people lecturing Islamists.
The fight against misogyny in Islam is a fight for Islamic women. When there is a cry from Islamic women for non-Islamists to set fashion laws for Islamic women to obey (and not just the odd lone voice) then maybe, possible you might have a point. Is that ever going to happen?
I do not think that Islamic women need misogynist, sexist, Islamophobic, theophobic, bigoted, and patronising rules and punishment. To liberate them, no less! Perhaps they need the opposite
This kind of nationalism is way more "religious" than wanting to wear a headscarf. Between one person who wants to dress in a certain way and another person who wants to control how a large number of other people dress because they perceive it as a threat to their ideology, who is more extreme?
> Religious vestment simply has no place outside of ritual occasions.
Where would you draw the line between religious and cultural? I assume you would have no problem with people wearing traditional clothes? What about traditional amish clothing? Would a buddhist be allowed to wear a rakusu? Could a Scandinavian raise a maypole even though it was a design that was meant to christianize a previously pagan religion but is now not seen as religious? Would file-sharing not be allowed since kopimism is an official religion in some countries? Would symbols not originally rooted in religion but later adopted by them be allowed?
I'd be really interested to know where you draw the line.
Where would you draw the line between religious and cultural? I assume you would have no problem with people wearing traditional clothes? What about traditional amish clothing? Would a buddhist be allowed to wear a rakusu? Could a Scandinavian raise a maypole even though it was a design that was meant to christianize a previously pagan religion but is now not seen as religious? Would file-sharing not be allowed since kopimism is an official religion in some countries? Would symbols not originally rooted in religion but later adopted by them be allowed?
I'd be really interested to know where you draw the line.
Allowing people to dress how they please is hardly deference.
There are no countries that allow people to dress how they please. There is no way that the state letting people walk around, say, naked, in the univeristies they operate _wouldn't_ be considered as deferring to the views of a particular nudist subculture.
The state in question has "not showing this kind of deference toward religions" as one of its founding principles: in fact, as founding principle number one. It states that certain personal lifestyle choices, such as religion, do not belong the public sphere. In the public sphere each individual should appear as a simple citizen, and not seek to distinguish thenselves from other citizens along religious lines.
The state in question has "not showing this kind of deference toward religions" as one of its founding principles: in fact, as founding principle number one. It states that certain personal lifestyle choices, such as religion, do not belong the public sphere. In the public sphere each individual should appear as a simple citizen, and not seek to distinguish thenselves from other citizens along religious lines.
>> Acknowledging religion as something that deserves any sort of deference by the State isn't acceptable.
What next, enforce a communist uniform on everyone and strictly control their freedom to express their thoughts? Do you realise how ludicrous you sound? I note you're French and your religious expressions laws are not made in the name of secularism, rather specifically intended to discriminate against a sizeable minority.
Presumably your also include a Christian Cross necklace? What about a symmetric cross that's visibly a cross but not a traditional cross? A cross at an angle?
You're entitled to express your point of view, of course, but please be more convincing and informed than a nationalistically ideological charlatan (how ironic).
What next, enforce a communist uniform on everyone and strictly control their freedom to express their thoughts? Do you realise how ludicrous you sound? I note you're French and your religious expressions laws are not made in the name of secularism, rather specifically intended to discriminate against a sizeable minority.
Presumably your also include a Christian Cross necklace? What about a symmetric cross that's visibly a cross but not a traditional cross? A cross at an angle?
You're entitled to express your point of view, of course, but please be more convincing and informed than a nationalistically ideological charlatan (how ironic).
>What next, enforce a communist uniform on everyone and strictly control their freedom to express their thoughts? Do you realise how ludicrous you sound?
You're making leaps in logic that don't make sense to me. You're the one being ludicrous, as far as I can tell.
>I note you're French and your religious expressions laws are not made in the name of secularism, rather specifically intended to discriminate against a sizeable minority.
At the time those laws were made, the absolute majority of the country was made of church-going Catholics. That at the present day they're mostly invoked in relation to a religious minority doesn't make any difference.
> Presumably your also include a Christian Cross necklace?
Sure.
> What about a symmetric cross that's visibly a cross but not a traditional cross? A cross at an angle?
Is it a token of belonging to a religious organization ? If so, keep it private. I don't see what's complex about that.
> You're entitled to express your point of view, of course, but please be more convincing and informed than a nationalistically ideological charlatan (how ironic).
I'm informed about the political and religious history of my own country, and as such transversely familiar with the framework Atatürk tried to put in place in Turkey. I'm less familiar with the ways it started breaking down. And frankly, you're not in any position to demand better argumentation on my part if you're not doing as much yourself.
You're making leaps in logic that don't make sense to me. You're the one being ludicrous, as far as I can tell.
>I note you're French and your religious expressions laws are not made in the name of secularism, rather specifically intended to discriminate against a sizeable minority.
At the time those laws were made, the absolute majority of the country was made of church-going Catholics. That at the present day they're mostly invoked in relation to a religious minority doesn't make any difference.
> Presumably your also include a Christian Cross necklace?
Sure.
> What about a symmetric cross that's visibly a cross but not a traditional cross? A cross at an angle?
Is it a token of belonging to a religious organization ? If so, keep it private. I don't see what's complex about that.
> You're entitled to express your point of view, of course, but please be more convincing and informed than a nationalistically ideological charlatan (how ironic).
I'm informed about the political and religious history of my own country, and as such transversely familiar with the framework Atatürk tried to put in place in Turkey. I'm less familiar with the ways it started breaking down. And frankly, you're not in any position to demand better argumentation on my part if you're not doing as much yourself.
> I would feel extremely comfortable banning those head coverings from all universities, if not all public venues.
Good thing you're not in a position to make such a call then.
> Religious vestment simply has no place outside of ritual occasions
The Hijab is not merely a "religious vestment" as the seculars and atheists foolishly seem to think. It's a way of life, a way of showing purity and piety.
> Acknowledging religion as something that deserves any sort of deference by the State isn't acceptable. And I say that as an otherwise religious person myself (don't take it as the stance of some rabid atheist).
I'm going to assume you're a Christian, and I'm not surprised, your religion has been relegated to the sidelines when it comes to anything relevant in terms of running society. And they convinced you to keep it that way.
Let me ask you this: do you have an issue with homosexuals and transexuals showing their propaganda in public?
Good thing you're not in a position to make such a call then.
> Religious vestment simply has no place outside of ritual occasions
The Hijab is not merely a "religious vestment" as the seculars and atheists foolishly seem to think. It's a way of life, a way of showing purity and piety.
> Acknowledging religion as something that deserves any sort of deference by the State isn't acceptable. And I say that as an otherwise religious person myself (don't take it as the stance of some rabid atheist).
I'm going to assume you're a Christian, and I'm not surprised, your religion has been relegated to the sidelines when it comes to anything relevant in terms of running society. And they convinced you to keep it that way.
Let me ask you this: do you have an issue with homosexuals and transexuals showing their propaganda in public?
I don't disagree with you but I'd like to provide some context for how things have shifted, for others reading this thread. The current headscarf culture in Turkey, as I see it.
The head coverings (various kinds) are associated with modesty. They are often fashionable modesty (?!) in Turkey now, as Armani and others advertise cutting-edge, expensive headscarfs. Some women are using them as a status symbol. They can also be used to signal pro-Erdoğan, pro-Islamist (in a government sense) sentiments.
Now, a woman not wearing a head covering (very many do not) may be called a slut by women wearing them. Rare perahps, but these things happen. There is often a palpable tension between the groups of women who wear them, and the groups of women who do not. It is as I said often a political symbol.
The head coverings (various kinds) are associated with modesty. They are often fashionable modesty (?!) in Turkey now, as Armani and others advertise cutting-edge, expensive headscarfs. Some women are using them as a status symbol. They can also be used to signal pro-Erdoğan, pro-Islamist (in a government sense) sentiments.
Now, a woman not wearing a head covering (very many do not) may be called a slut by women wearing them. Rare perahps, but these things happen. There is often a palpable tension between the groups of women who wear them, and the groups of women who do not. It is as I said often a political symbol.
Yep. A lot of people seem to - willingly or unwillingly - ignore the dark side of Ataturk’s revolution. The fact of the matter is that nothing in the real world is ever as rosy as you would like it to be.
It seems to me that headscarf-wearing is quite politicised in many countries and I think there is a risk of applying the standards of one’s own political group in one’s own country to another place where the connotations are different.
For example in developed English-speaking countries, allowing headscarves is seen as promoting diversity, inclusiveness and tolerance. Wanting to restrict this is generally considered to be somewhere between right-wing and bigoted. In France, views tend to be different. In Iran, where hair coverings are mandatory for women, the connotations are different and they can be symbols of an authoritarian or oppressive government (to certain people at least) instead.
In this case, as well as the culture in Turkey, one must consider:
- changing attitudes to who attends university since the old rules were introduced.
- changing attitudes among Muslims to headscarves since the old rules were introduced.
- changing attitudes towards secularisation (and politics in general) since the old rules were introduced.
It seems to me that most HN readers (myself included) are not in a good position to pass judgement and that this comment benefits from the liberal anglosphere view aligning with its arguments. But I don’t know how that fits in with the way Turks think or used to think.
For example in developed English-speaking countries, allowing headscarves is seen as promoting diversity, inclusiveness and tolerance. Wanting to restrict this is generally considered to be somewhere between right-wing and bigoted. In France, views tend to be different. In Iran, where hair coverings are mandatory for women, the connotations are different and they can be symbols of an authoritarian or oppressive government (to certain people at least) instead.
In this case, as well as the culture in Turkey, one must consider:
- changing attitudes to who attends university since the old rules were introduced.
- changing attitudes among Muslims to headscarves since the old rules were introduced.
- changing attitudes towards secularisation (and politics in general) since the old rules were introduced.
It seems to me that most HN readers (myself included) are not in a good position to pass judgement and that this comment benefits from the liberal anglosphere view aligning with its arguments. But I don’t know how that fits in with the way Turks think or used to think.
It has nothing to do with religious beliefs, its all about gathering capital on his side. He is just abusing peoples' religious beliefs. Everybody knows the new savings scheme he introduced is essentially increasing interest rates.
Contrary to popular belief, I do not think that Erdogan will continue to mold Turkey's future. So far Turkey always had 40-50% opposition which could not unit, but now they are all united and next time it is certainly going to tip the scale in the right way. He will do everything to delay the elections or call them at the right time -like now ?- but his plans don't always work out -not far, look to recent Istanbul elections he lost.
Contrary to popular belief, I do not think that Erdogan will continue to mold Turkey's future. So far Turkey always had 40-50% opposition which could not unit, but now they are all united and next time it is certainly going to tip the scale in the right way. He will do everything to delay the elections or call them at the right time -like now ?- but his plans don't always work out -not far, look to recent Istanbul elections he lost.
> Everybody knows the new savings scheme he introduced is essentially increasing interest rates.
This is not true. Raising interest rates would mean raising the cost of funding for the banking system. Under the new saving scheme, since the Treasury pays depositors the extra yield, the cost for banks remains unchanged. As does the marginal cost of borrowing from the central bank.
The new saving scheme is a free dollar call sold by the country's Treasury to depositors. And it will pay it out by printing money.
This is not true. Raising interest rates would mean raising the cost of funding for the banking system. Under the new saving scheme, since the Treasury pays depositors the extra yield, the cost for banks remains unchanged. As does the marginal cost of borrowing from the central bank.
The new saving scheme is a free dollar call sold by the country's Treasury to depositors. And it will pay it out by printing money.
> printing money
Something it cannot do without increasing its own borrowing costs, and reducing the import purchasing power of its currency. This has been tried and doesn't work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday
Something it cannot do without increasing its own borrowing costs, and reducing the import purchasing power of its currency. This has been tried and doesn't work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday
The ruling regime/Edrogan are not interested in the general wellbeing of the country, only of looting it.
I've come to realize that there are a significant number of politicians who will happily oversee 100 units of 'destruction' if it means they are able to generate 1 unit of personal profit in the process. When applied to an entire nation state, the results are significant. Look at the corrupt wealth generated by the current US Speaker of the House, for example.
I've come to realize that there are a significant number of politicians who will happily oversee 100 units of 'destruction' if it means they are able to generate 1 unit of personal profit in the process. When applied to an entire nation state, the results are significant. Look at the corrupt wealth generated by the current US Speaker of the House, for example.
Anybody with even a cursory knowledge of macroeconomics knows it won’t work. Erdogan just doesn’t happen to be one of those people. It’s tragic.
Borrowing cost for both companies and individuals increased substantially this week. Yes, it is true.
Borrowing costs increased independently of the new savings product. They were rising well before it was announced and increased further because the market priced in a higher level of inflation following the sharp depreciation.
The higher rate on deposits that the new saving scheme offers doesn't increase funding costs for banks in anyway. The Treasury literally pays the depositors the extra yield, not the banks.
The higher rate on deposits that the new saving scheme offers doesn't increase funding costs for banks in anyway. The Treasury literally pays the depositors the extra yield, not the banks.
Does it matter if it is direct result or second order?
BTW, this week, the interest on private loans increased substantially, not gradually.
BTW, this week, the interest on private loans increased substantially, not gradually.
Independent is very different from second order.
And, yes I know interest on loans increased substantially but that has nothing to do with the new saving product and everything to do with the meltdown in the lira that preceded.
Edit: And in any case why would banks raise loan rates if they don't have to bear the cost of the new product?
And, yes I know interest on loans increased substantially but that has nothing to do with the new saving product and everything to do with the meltdown in the lira that preceded.
Edit: And in any case why would banks raise loan rates if they don't have to bear the cost of the new product?
You are asking the correct question, it does not matter if the cost is financed by banks or public. The cost of borrowing increased substantially, even though exchange rate decreased in the last one week.
Access to TL got harder by the actions of the government. This is why interest rates increased.
Access to TL got harder by the actions of the government. This is why interest rates increased.
Of course it matters. If banks bare the cost, they have to pass it on to their customers by raising rates. If the public pays for it, the government and central bank will end up printing money --one way or another -- to pay depositors.
And all this mind you only IF people move a substantial amount of their lira deposits to the new product AND the lira depreciates more than the rate on the underlying lira deposit account (only then are savers eligible for the kicker rate).
So far, savers have moved around 10b liras into this product, out of a total 4.3 trillion lira of deposits.
You're telling me banks raised rates because of that marginal shift? And even though, I repeat, they don't have to pay for it?
And all this mind you only IF people move a substantial amount of their lira deposits to the new product AND the lira depreciates more than the rate on the underlying lira deposit account (only then are savers eligible for the kicker rate).
So far, savers have moved around 10b liras into this product, out of a total 4.3 trillion lira of deposits.
You're telling me banks raised rates because of that marginal shift? And even though, I repeat, they don't have to pay for it?
I am saying that the government raised interest rates substantially, one way or the other. It used couple of tools to do it, one of them is promising expected dollar appreciation as interest. (Tl is expected to depreciate at least at the rate of inflation, which substantially higher then central banks overnight rate, hence they have increased interest)
He lost all three of the biggest cities of Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir. Yet his coalition actually increased their total votes in the municipal elections by getting more votes in other cities.
[deleted]
Syria was a prosperous and deeply secular country, with many cultural sites dating back to the ancient world. At least it was until imported wahabbi terrorists from you know where started to split the country up, turning parts of it into a Islamic State caliphate.
Today, Syria is being plundered by the same countries that helped the terrorists sell the stolen oil. We all know which country smuggled truckloads worth of oil then, and which country does the same now.
Comparing Turkey's and Syria's cultures is like comparing an ugly frog to a beautiful marmaid.
Today, Syria is being plundered by the same countries that helped the terrorists sell the stolen oil. We all know which country smuggled truckloads worth of oil then, and which country does the same now.
Comparing Turkey's and Syria's cultures is like comparing an ugly frog to a beautiful marmaid.
That country is Russian, right? Or Saudi Arabia?
I am not very familiar with Syria situation. Purely a honest question.
I am not very familiar with Syria situation. Purely a honest question.
Russia is invited by the government to help in the fight against wahabbi terrorists imported from Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
Turkey used to smuggle Syrian oil, but today that "job" belongs to the USA.
Turkey used to smuggle Syrian oil, but today that "job" belongs to the USA.
Saudi Arabia. Russia supports Assad and has no interest in destabilizing the country because they want to maintain their naval base at Latakia etc.
Turkey is at least as much at fault as Saudi Arabia. They literally straight up pay salaries to wahabbi terrorists. The US also financed a lot of them.
> They literally straight up pay salaries to wahabbi terrorists
Really? I did not know that. Have you a source?
Really? I did not know that. Have you a source?
I do :
> The Turkey-backed FSA's wages are paid for by the Turkish government, they operate alongside the Turkish Armed Forces
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_National_Army
As for their terrorist proclivities:. https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/14/turkish-backed-forces-f...
To be fair though, they basically took over the CIA operations.
> The Turkey-backed FSA's wages are paid for by the Turkish government, they operate alongside the Turkish Armed Forces
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_National_Army
As for their terrorist proclivities:. https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/14/turkish-backed-forces-f...
To be fair though, they basically took over the CIA operations.
Until Trump appeared on the scene. You missed that out.
Actually, it continued for two years at least into the Trump presidency, see Operation Timber Sycamore.
Northeastern Syria (major agriculture/oil region) has been actively occupied by USA for the better part of a decade. Turkey occupies Northwestern Syria (Idlib) along with US-backed HTS.
Arguably the only reason Syria didn't collapse like Libya/Iraq is because Russia was there to balance against US interests.
Arguably the only reason Syria didn't collapse like Libya/Iraq is because Russia was there to balance against US interests.
The Syrian conflict, though deliberately obfuscated, was probably primarily a conflict between Russia-backed Iran and US-backed Saudi Arabia. Wahabism is an arm of the latter.
I was thinking that it was engineered because Assad refused to allow Qatar South Par gas pipelines from criss crossing his country on its way to Europe. The arreas occupied by ISIS terror group in Iraq and Syria were actually areas meant for South Par gas pipelines. South Par gas would have freed Europe from Russia energy dependency.
Yes, this is the real reason for the war. Had Assad accepted the proposal, he would be hailed in the MS media as a hero and a great leader who turned his country into a desert oasis.
Of course, this would have isolated and aggrovated Russia further, and Assad knew that. Nevermind that Syria is within range of Russia's missiles. He also knew what became of Sadam Housein (once an ally to the US) once he was of no use to the West.
In any case, causing a civil war inside a country just to punish a leader for making calculated, reasonable choice is criminal and evil.
Of course, this would have isolated and aggrovated Russia further, and Assad knew that. Nevermind that Syria is within range of Russia's missiles. He also knew what became of Sadam Housein (once an ally to the US) once he was of no use to the West.
In any case, causing a civil war inside a country just to punish a leader for making calculated, reasonable choice is criminal and evil.
Well you conveniently skipped another very important country in the region.
For those of us interested but less informed - could you name the country directly?
It's a different axis. The Turks are fighting the Sauds for influence in the Islamic world, while the Sauds are fighting the Iranians in their imagined Shia vs Sunni conflict.
The one in the title post.
Saudi Arabia as the direct source of Wahhabis, with the US funding and arming them.
Russia has been supporting the secular Syrian government.
Russia has been supporting the secular Syrian government.
I fail to see how the US is funding the Saudis. Arming, maybe. Funding? Not so much.
The US funds Wahhabis all over the world, from Syria to Kosovo to Iraq to Xinjiang.
ask the clinton fundation
why am i being downvoted. it's public knowledge and part of why assange rots in jail. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/julian-assange-cli...
Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
They fall like dominoes. Where does the chain lead?
Erdoğan is a Ottoman and not an Islamic leader. He is using Islam to reach his goals but he is not married to it. He'll move away from Islam as soon as it no longer serves his purposes.
Not at all. Ottoman Sultans led a multicultural empire. There is now not a single neighbour of turkey that has good relations with them. Erdogan is an opportunist populist, not a great leader, sadly for turks
What is an "Ottoman leader"?
Basically he still believes in the Ottoman empire and that his country should turn into a super-power that controls the Mediterranean. Many Turks share this idea, too.
Essentially a Turk first and then a Muslim. Ottoman because it allows him to project hegemony because the Ottomans were the last Islamic "Caliphs".
Even a fictional character, Paul Atriades, knows that religious zeal is a beast that cannot be contained. I am more inclined to believe that as a skilled politician erdogan should be well versed in history and politics to see that danger. And I believe that he indeed is a believer of Islamic religion.
Heh. I wasn't aware religious beliefs include monetary policies. I just hope they don't start another war out of desperation.
Many religions have laws about interest and usury. Catholics were unable to lend with interest between each other for a very long time. I suppose it's not a stretch to say if a person can't charge interest the government shouldn't be doing it either.
Your last sentence makes sense
One big concern is that Erdoğan will likely hold on to power however he can. He's already circumvented the constitution (and changed electoral law). I believe he will fight to maintain his reign if necessary. He has about 50% of the country behind him, and as far as I can tell the allegiance is based on religious principles, which makes it a strong allegiance indeed.
Donald Trump only won 46.1% of the vote in 2016 and that was enough. In fact no one got over 50%. Hillary Clinton had a plurality with 48.2%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidentia...
In England David Cameron had a parliamentary majority with only 38% of the vote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidentia...
In England David Cameron had a parliamentary majority with only 38% of the vote.
In England in 2015, Cameron had 40.9% apparently (https://www.statista.com/statistics/717022/general-elections...). The point still stands—he had far more than 40.9% of English seats!
On the other hand, the Turkish electoral system can fail even more bizarrely than a simple single-member constituency FPTP system—in 2002, only the CHP and AKP cleared the 10% threshold, so the AKP had ⅔ of the votes.
However, at the moment, the president is directly elected, so anything <50% wouldn’t suffice. (How those votes are obtained, of course, is another matter.)
On the other hand, the Turkish electoral system can fail even more bizarrely than a simple single-member constituency FPTP system—in 2002, only the CHP and AKP cleared the 10% threshold, so the AKP had ⅔ of the votes.
However, at the moment, the president is directly elected, so anything <50% wouldn’t suffice. (How those votes are obtained, of course, is another matter.)
That's actual voters of course, a subset of how many people support a candidate or President in the US. The parent has no idea how many people support Erdogan (the claimed 50%), nobody does. It's just a guess in the wind (if it's 42% that's a massive difference from 54%, as to whether Erdogan remains standing). Like trying to guess how many Russians really support Putin's dictatorship. Getting honest answers on such questions is quite difficult, as is accurately polling in nations the size and complexity of eg the US, Russia or Turkey.
> according to interpretation of Islamic principles, I assume
It's literally in the Quran:
* https://quran.com/2/275
* https://quran.com/3/130
And the Hadiths:
* https://sunnah.com/riyadussalihin:1615
* https://sunnah.com/bulugh/7/62
This isn't a matter of interpretation.
It's literally in the Quran:
* https://quran.com/2/275
* https://quran.com/3/130
And the Hadiths:
* https://sunnah.com/riyadussalihin:1615
* https://sunnah.com/bulugh/7/62
This isn't a matter of interpretation.
Ah - I hadn't realised God himself took a position on interest rate policy.
Paradox of tolerance.
Throats were slit? I never read that.
If you believe in democracy you would celebrate the failure of a coup. Even if you hate the surviving leader, you ought to prefer defeating him within the frameworks of democracy.
You seem to really dislike Muslim culture. If the people of Turkey want their culture to closer to that of Syria instead of Germany, what’s the problem?
If you believe in democracy you would celebrate the failure of a coup. Even if you hate the surviving leader, you ought to prefer defeating him within the frameworks of democracy.
You seem to really dislike Muslim culture. If the people of Turkey want their culture to closer to that of Syria instead of Germany, what’s the problem?
>"If you believe in democracy you would celebrate the failure of a coup. Even if you hate the surviving leader, you ought to prefer defeating him within the frameworks of democracy."
You are supposing that the once freely-elected leader will permit a reversion to 'free' democracy. In fact, rigged elections form the basis of stable autocracies. Outright juntas and dictatorships are actually more likely to transition to 'free' democracies.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Political_Surviva...
You are supposing that the once freely-elected leader will permit a reversion to 'free' democracy. In fact, rigged elections form the basis of stable autocracies. Outright juntas and dictatorships are actually more likely to transition to 'free' democracies.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Political_Surviva...
> Even if you hate the surviving leader, you ought to prefer defeating him within the frameworks of democracy.
Not in this case. The military (with its coups) was often the force that kept the turkish democracy alive, or else it would have fallen to many more dictators
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/7/16/timeline-a-history-...
Not in this case. The military (with its coups) was often the force that kept the turkish democracy alive, or else it would have fallen to many more dictators
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/7/16/timeline-a-history-...
I remember there was an instance of a soldier being beheaded on the Bosphorus bridge. Not sure about the plural though
The problem is that people suffer the transition's consequences.
The current state of affairs has driven a rather large part of the country's population, who share Western ideals and want to pursue them for their nation, prefer a coup over whatever this ongoing messy loss of wealth and human capital is (certainly not 'democracy,' though). That should be telling, but it's hard to have Westerners empathise, I guess?
The current state of affairs has driven a rather large part of the country's population, who share Western ideals and want to pursue them for their nation, prefer a coup over whatever this ongoing messy loss of wealth and human capital is (certainly not 'democracy,' though). That should be telling, but it's hard to have Westerners empathise, I guess?
Westerners think that their culture is the greatest of all time, how could you not accept it? They are even exporting it together with their bombs and missiles in case you don't comply /s
But seriously, if their "culture" consists of gender theories, Holywood movies, superhero novels and the like, they can keep their culture.
But seriously, if their "culture" consists of gender theories, Holywood movies, superhero novels and the like, they can keep their culture.
You’ve picked a subset of a subset of a subset.
There is a little more to it than that, and a similar style summary of your preferred culture would be pretty dark.
There is a little more to it than that, and a similar style summary of your preferred culture would be pretty dark.
> If you believe in democracy you would celebrate the failure of a coup.
That depends, I suppose. Hitler was democratically elected. Hard to say what might have happened, had one of the many plans to assassinate him had worked, but I'm not sure we'd look at it retrospectively as an attack on democracy.
That depends, I suppose. Hitler was democratically elected. Hard to say what might have happened, had one of the many plans to assassinate him had worked, but I'm not sure we'd look at it retrospectively as an attack on democracy.
Erdogan pulled a huge pump and dump scheme a few days ago. He kept repeating everything that makes the Turkish Lira weaker and weaker, he and his government claimed that the plan is to lower the lira and compete on price and the lira is not weak because they failed but because that's the plan. We will be the next China, they said.
Then on the night of Dec 20, he introduces a financial instrument where the government offers %14 interest and guarantees to pay the any difference if it happens that the lira devalues. With a coordinated effort, government banks start selling $USD the whole day and whole night when the markets are shallow and Turks are asleep, selling off at least 7B$ of the reserves of the central bank and who knows how much of other banks, lowering the $USD from 18 the night Turks went to bed to 11 at the morning.
Look at that graph: https://twitter.com/tashecon/status/1473065067914702852
Then they continued to sell off the national $USD reserves, conducting a full blown media propaganda operation including advertisement that is obviously produced at least days before the event. Looking back, just the day before the stock market crashed with %10 and there are rumours of certain businessman being informed that the government will change it's stance and intervene strongly.
Then we had the Economy minister bragging how they screwed up the little guy who bought $USD at over 14 in an attempt to protect their savings, adding that no institutional investors were harmed in the process.
It's just a crypto-bros level of shake off organised and executed by the government. They claim that the orthodox economists are to be blamed for the losses, how silly they are for not accounting for the government tricking the people. Imagine FED giving guidance for interest rates decrease then out of the blue dramatically increasing the rates at midnight once the pals of the president position themselves correctly and saying that the public shouldn't have listed to the economists.
At this very moment, Erdogan is having an "interview" that is broadcasted by multiple TV channels and as expected they again started selling off $USD as he began speaking, pushing the dollar from about 12 to 10.
Take a look at that chart: https://imgur.com/a/CxYYfyL
That's %20 daily volatility.
Then on the night of Dec 20, he introduces a financial instrument where the government offers %14 interest and guarantees to pay the any difference if it happens that the lira devalues. With a coordinated effort, government banks start selling $USD the whole day and whole night when the markets are shallow and Turks are asleep, selling off at least 7B$ of the reserves of the central bank and who knows how much of other banks, lowering the $USD from 18 the night Turks went to bed to 11 at the morning.
Look at that graph: https://twitter.com/tashecon/status/1473065067914702852
Then they continued to sell off the national $USD reserves, conducting a full blown media propaganda operation including advertisement that is obviously produced at least days before the event. Looking back, just the day before the stock market crashed with %10 and there are rumours of certain businessman being informed that the government will change it's stance and intervene strongly.
Then we had the Economy minister bragging how they screwed up the little guy who bought $USD at over 14 in an attempt to protect their savings, adding that no institutional investors were harmed in the process.
It's just a crypto-bros level of shake off organised and executed by the government. They claim that the orthodox economists are to be blamed for the losses, how silly they are for not accounting for the government tricking the people. Imagine FED giving guidance for interest rates decrease then out of the blue dramatically increasing the rates at midnight once the pals of the president position themselves correctly and saying that the public shouldn't have listed to the economists.
At this very moment, Erdogan is having an "interview" that is broadcasted by multiple TV channels and as expected they again started selling off $USD as he began speaking, pushing the dollar from about 12 to 10.
Take a look at that chart: https://imgur.com/a/CxYYfyL
That's %20 daily volatility.
I wonder how long their pump will last, their USD reserves are now exhausted, their new savings plan will also cost a fortune.
They are going to continue selling land and military companies to Qatar and other Arabs.
You call it a "pump and dump scheme" but only give evidence of pumping and not dumping. A dump would be Erdogan buying back a load of USD at 10 to 12 but I'm not sure they are doing that?
Wow, that’s bizarre. I don’t recall governments ever aggressively propping up their currency, usually they devalue it as a silent tax or export subsidy.
The plan is to get rid of $US reserves and replace them with a currency of some other country. Maybe China.
Bold move, and a smart one, considering the outright hostile actions by the US towards the country. No dollar reserves, means no more economic bullying by the US.
Bold move, and a smart one, considering the outright hostile actions by the US towards the country. No dollar reserves, means no more economic bullying by the US.
[deleted]
Then Turkey will become China's puppet, like Russia is now.
Russia is already losing their strong engineering force to China, their resources are bought cheaply by China and China is not even remotely investing in Russia. Much to the dismay of Putin.
Turkey next?
Russia is already losing their strong engineering force to China, their resources are bought cheaply by China and China is not even remotely investing in Russia. Much to the dismay of Putin.
Turkey next?
Speaking like half of the world isn't America's puppet already.
China at least doesn't have military bases all over the world to ensure everybody stays in line.
I wonder how many European countries would intentionaly harm their economies by placing sanctions on Russia if the US troops weren't there.
China at least doesn't have military bases all over the world to ensure everybody stays in line.
I wonder how many European countries would intentionaly harm their economies by placing sanctions on Russia if the US troops weren't there.
Nobody wants China in their backyard. The US is mostly there as protection.
Where China is claiming territory it doesn't have any claims to and is using severe military pressure for it.
Other than that, the ports that China does have is mostly because of loans that countries can't repay. Where they then claim infrastructure for their own.
You don't seem to be informed on the topic?
Where China is claiming territory it doesn't have any claims to and is using severe military pressure for it.
Other than that, the ports that China does have is mostly because of loans that countries can't repay. Where they then claim infrastructure for their own.
You don't seem to be informed on the topic?
I am well informed, but you seem to be ignorrant of the fact that most countries don't need US' racke..., oops, I mean protection.
Should we ask people of Syria what is the US doing on their soil? Or Iraqis, who want them out but they for some reason don't wanna leave.
As for loans...well, maybe don't take them if you can't repay them. The West is lending too, you know. And those credits aren't cheap.
Should we ask people of Syria what is the US doing on their soil? Or Iraqis, who want them out but they for some reason don't wanna leave.
As for loans...well, maybe don't take them if you can't repay them. The West is lending too, you know. And those credits aren't cheap.
Mispositioning words don't mean anything.
And the loans are done by WHO. Many people benefit from it, but you can't get them while doing stupid things. At least it is manageable to pay back.
While China had some well positioned corrupt loans going on, which they actually want infrastructure/premium ressources and self managed in return. WHO doesn't have those conflicting interests.
I'm not saying WHO is perfect either, but it's obviously superior to the other option.
And the loans are done by WHO. Many people benefit from it, but you can't get them while doing stupid things. At least it is manageable to pay back.
While China had some well positioned corrupt loans going on, which they actually want infrastructure/premium ressources and self managed in return. WHO doesn't have those conflicting interests.
I'm not saying WHO is perfect either, but it's obviously superior to the other option.
WHO is giving loans? Oooh, you meant vaccines. I thought we were talking about financial loans.
By the way, I come from a country that was bombed by the US (doesn't narrow it much, I know) and can you guess what the new puppet government did after the war ended?
Yeah, it sold nearly all domestic companies, mines and factories for pennies to the western capitalists. It also dismantled a very efficient domestic financial/accounting system, replacing it with foreign banks.
So, don't talk to me about how the West is somehow different, or better than China.
By the way, I come from a country that was bombed by the US (doesn't narrow it much, I know) and can you guess what the new puppet government did after the war ended?
Yeah, it sold nearly all domestic companies, mines and factories for pennies to the western capitalists. It also dismantled a very efficient domestic financial/accounting system, replacing it with foreign banks.
So, don't talk to me about how the West is somehow different, or better than China.
Yet, you can still talk about it on an open forum on "a western platform" ( note: this isn't to take a side on good/wrong since i don't know what exactly you are talking about)
But I'm pretty sure the problems in the country predate US intervention.
And it doesn't contradict the fact that capitalism has made the world more peaceful than ever because of trade.
Convince me with numbers otherwise.
Ps. Yeah, i said WHO instead of IMF. Obviously, it's the latter.
But I'm pretty sure the problems in the country predate US intervention.
And it doesn't contradict the fact that capitalism has made the world more peaceful than ever because of trade.
Convince me with numbers otherwise.
Ps. Yeah, i said WHO instead of IMF. Obviously, it's the latter.
>Imagine FED giving guidance for interest rates decrease then out of the blue dramatically increasing the rates at midnight once the pals of the president position themselves correctly and saying that the public shouldn't have listed to the economists.
The Fed has done worse, just on a longer timescale. Alan Greenspan may, in fact, be the devil.
The Fed has done worse, just on a longer timescale. Alan Greenspan may, in fact, be the devil.
> The one thing that the central bank is not doing is raising interest rates. This is at the heart of the entire crisis.
Okay am I missing something here? Europe has negative rates. The US has negative rates. But when Turkey lowers rates from 19% (!!?!!) to 14% it creates a “crisis”?
Okay am I missing something here? Europe has negative rates. The US has negative rates. But when Turkey lowers rates from 19% (!!?!!) to 14% it creates a “crisis”?
Until last year, US and Europe was desperately trying to raise inflation. I do not remember any time in Turkish history when this was the case.
Anyways, current Turkish PPI is >50% (and it will only increase in coming months.). The real interest rate in Turkey is in far negative territory compared to US and EU, where they are desperate for inflation.
Anyways, current Turkish PPI is >50% (and it will only increase in coming months.). The real interest rate in Turkey is in far negative territory compared to US and EU, where they are desperate for inflation.
>> US ... was desperately trying to raise inflation.
Well good news, they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams....
Well good news, they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams....
Well. 7% inflation is not insane. Look at it over the last 5 years. Average inflation is not crazy.
7% should considered unacceptable.
It is great for those with hard assets, it is TERRIBLE for the working poor.
Funny how many of the same people that claim to want to help the poor (democrats) have no problem with high inflation
Inflation is great for people in massive debt, or hold assets, and the rich
Inflation is terrible for savers, responsible people living with in their means, poor that pay cash for everything, etc etc.
It is great for those with hard assets, it is TERRIBLE for the working poor.
Funny how many of the same people that claim to want to help the poor (democrats) have no problem with high inflation
Inflation is great for people in massive debt, or hold assets, and the rich
Inflation is terrible for savers, responsible people living with in their means, poor that pay cash for everything, etc etc.
Inflation is a mixed bag, you can't make blanket statements about it at all. The only thing that is always bad for working people is an excessively high real interest rate as interest can only be paid through doing actual work. Companies pass their interest payments onto consumer prices meaning the top 10% are the only net recipients of interest.
Right, but at least they said they know there is a problem and they will address it.
It is not like how it is in Turkey where they said “inflation is high, let’s decrease it by printing far far more money and decreasing interest rate further”.
Have they? because last I checked they (both the Tresury, and The Fed) still insist that this inflation is transitory, supply chain issue not their monentary policy... (they investigated themselves and found they did nothing wrong)
And they are still claiming government spending trillions is not the cause, and will not create new inflation..
So no, I dont believe they have acknowledged the problem at all, nor are they really going to address is. Sure the fed says they will wind down their buying, and signaled they might raise interest rates VERY VERY VERY minimally, they are acting as if demand caused by supply chain issues is the root cause
It is not
And they are still claiming government spending trillions is not the cause, and will not create new inflation..
So no, I dont believe they have acknowledged the problem at all, nor are they really going to address is. Sure the fed says they will wind down their buying, and signaled they might raise interest rates VERY VERY VERY minimally, they are acting as if demand caused by supply chain issues is the root cause
It is not
They have taken actions in response to inflation....
I am not aware that US government is going to address inflation issues. Interest rate should at least match inflation that is 6.8% and that is not going to happen.
The Fed isn’t doing that because it’s an extreme change that would wreck the economy. Or at least, so many people believe. Why do you think you know better?
I only say FED doesn’t address inflation. Not if it is good or bad.
They obviously address inflation. Why do you think they do not?
Fed didn't increase interest rate, so they obviously didn't address inflation.
US does not have negative rates. Every other central bank would raise interest rates with inflation at the levels we’re seeing in turkey. They problem here is that Turkey is doing the opposite
The US doesn't have negative interest rates, but with inflation over 6% and rates at 1.25% that's a pretty big negative real rate...
If you look at the long-term expected inflation rate based on T-bill yields, it is not so different from before (say around 2018-19 or so). I think 6% is probably an inappropriate number to use in this comparison. Though I agree it looks like negative real rates.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/T10YIE
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/T5YIE
(Alternatively you could suppose we’ll have inflation at x for one year and y on average for the next 9. If that’s the case I think the data above implies x=2.22% and y=4.7%, so I still think 6% is too much but maybe not totally crazy)
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/T10YIE
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/T5YIE
(Alternatively you could suppose we’ll have inflation at x for one year and y on average for the next 9. If that’s the case I think the data above implies x=2.22% and y=4.7%, so I still think 6% is too much but maybe not totally crazy)
Ugh, x and y the wrong way round obviously.
They have negative real rates.
there is a "natural" interest rate which is roughly what a lender would expect to earn when lending to a reputable borrower. The Federal Reserve/ECB may lend at a slightly lower/higher rate than this natural rate - but going far away from it leads to a crisis as the money supply becomes distorted.
There is a big difference between lending at 0% when "natural" interest is .25% and lending at 14% when natural interest is 20%. If inflation is 18% you're effectively giving consumers 4% return on borrowed money, which means everyone will borrow as much money as they possibly can and use it to purchase goods.
There is a big difference between lending at 0% when "natural" interest is .25% and lending at 14% when natural interest is 20%. If inflation is 18% you're effectively giving consumers 4% return on borrowed money, which means everyone will borrow as much money as they possibly can and use it to purchase goods.
> Lending at 14% when [...] inflation is 18%
In the US, inflation is nearly at 7%, while savings accounts yield around 0.05%. Doesn't that mean Americans are discouraged from keeping money in savings accounts about the same amount as Turks are?
In the US, inflation is nearly at 7%, while savings accounts yield around 0.05%. Doesn't that mean Americans are discouraged from keeping money in savings accounts about the same amount as Turks are?
Quite possible that the US is going down the same route Turkey is. The US has an entrenched financial system that might take an extra 6 months to enter a crises.
The current belief is that the fed will manage inflation appropriately, and that the 7% headline number will vanish in a few months. Housing increasing 20% last year is a sign that the same incentive is there, getting a mortgage at 2% and then earning a free 5% interest is too good a deal to pass up.
The current belief is that the fed will manage inflation appropriately, and that the 7% headline number will vanish in a few months. Housing increasing 20% last year is a sign that the same incentive is there, getting a mortgage at 2% and then earning a free 5% interest is too good a deal to pass up.
Yes, it is discouraging. This is a reason why fixed income investments are quite unattractive right now. But there is a lag. After many years of low inflation many people haven’t changed habits yet. We still don’t expect that much inflation.
> Doesn't that mean Americans are discouraged from keeping money in savings accounts about the same amount as Turks are?
If you believe American inflation will remain there, yes. Few do. (Also, the Fed is tightening.)
If you believe American inflation will remain there, yes. Few do. (Also, the Fed is tightening.)
Can anyone cite Muslim economists or theorista who endorse Erdogan's scheme? A vague "we don't do interest because Islam bans usury" hardly sounds like good policy. What is the Islamic alternative to the current macroeconomic framework?
They charge interest through other ways in “Islamic banking”. That’s all I know about it. Basically financial engineering, ends up in a be same way. Afaik there is no Islamic economics, just a bunch of funny business to avoid going against the religion. Same system in most places.
Those schemes that attempt to bypass usury by calling it something else are not Islamic. Many scholars have called them out.
Proper Islamic finance involves risk from both parties. E.g. one party provides funding, the other provides labor, if the project succeeds, they both reap the rewards. If it doesn't, then the first party loses money and the second the labor.
Islam very clearly calls out schemes to construct loopholes to bypass prohibition. One such transaction is that of the Einah sale: one party sells an item for a certain amount to be paid by installments (say sells a car for $12,000 to be paid $1000 per month over the next year), then the same party buys the same car for $10,000 cash. What ended up happening is that party B owes party A $12,000 to be paid over the year, but they received $10K cash. This is absolutely forbidden. Similarly, any scheme that stitches together a series of individually permissible transactions to come up with an overall transaction that mimics interest is absolutely forbidden as well. We don't have loopholes in Islam.
Proper Islamic finance involves risk from both parties. E.g. one party provides funding, the other provides labor, if the project succeeds, they both reap the rewards. If it doesn't, then the first party loses money and the second the labor.
Islam very clearly calls out schemes to construct loopholes to bypass prohibition. One such transaction is that of the Einah sale: one party sells an item for a certain amount to be paid by installments (say sells a car for $12,000 to be paid $1000 per month over the next year), then the same party buys the same car for $10,000 cash. What ended up happening is that party B owes party A $12,000 to be paid over the year, but they received $10K cash. This is absolutely forbidden. Similarly, any scheme that stitches together a series of individually permissible transactions to come up with an overall transaction that mimics interest is absolutely forbidden as well. We don't have loopholes in Islam.
Yeah but on a macroeconomic level, if say Pakistan needs to take a loan from Turkey, how does that work without interest?
aswrwb, care to hook up?
In recent months it has appeared that some high ranking members of AKP is taking over private businesses by arresting, threatening or even killing the owners. Biggest media company in Turkey was bought by Erdoğan without spending a penny. They still didn't pay. https://www.ft.com/content/3273aafc-4317-11e8-97ce-ea0c2bf34... Also watch this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvWOVToEmsA
This is why you always hold real assets. And, no, crypto is not real.
Hopefully crypto will become more real in the future and offer a way out of the corrupt usurious fiat system.
Crypto ala Bitcoin is built on the same usurious model but worse. The only solution is negative interest on cash.
How is it usurious?
Large movements, high volume, in currency not stock. The powers that be know the direction. How difficult could it be for them to make piles of money out of this? How difficult would this be to cover up?
I'm not very familiar with the mechanics of forex markets, but I'm fairly certain that a small circle of well-connected people has made a killing out of this. Which raises a question...
To what extent was plain and simple greed part of the motive for setting up this unorthodox policy? Insider trading.
I'm not very familiar with the mechanics of forex markets, but I'm fairly certain that a small circle of well-connected people has made a killing out of this. Which raises a question...
To what extent was plain and simple greed part of the motive for setting up this unorthodox policy? Insider trading.
The worse crisis Turkey has now, the better it is for its future. The policies of a charismatic autocrat must publicly and catastrophically fail, vaccinating the country against such types and returning the county on the secular track.
In democratic countries, people can rebuild from any crisis, so any dark period is temporary. In theological autocracies darkness has no end, and future gives no hope.
In democratic countries, people can rebuild from any crisis, so any dark period is temporary. In theological autocracies darkness has no end, and future gives no hope.
This is the whole point of democracies, you can throw people like this out.
Unfortunately for the Turkish people, you can push people pretty far in a well managed dictatorship - ie Belarus, Venezuela - and continue in power. This is why having dictators is never a good idea, you can’t replace them when they stop having any purpose.
Unfortunately for the Turkish people, you can push people pretty far in a well managed dictatorship - ie Belarus, Venezuela - and continue in power. This is why having dictators is never a good idea, you can’t replace them when they stop having any purpose.
[deleted]
Nice up-to-date overview of Turkey/US relations:
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/mideast/R44000.pdf
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/mideast/R44000.pdf
Just a question: would it have been a good idea for a Turkish person, say, a year ago, to invest in stable coins to prevent suffering from Lira depreciation?
PS: This is a sincere question…
EDIT: some are asking why not real Euros or Dollars? I was thinking convenience and availability. I’m not sure if you could just easily get dollars in Turkey.
PS: This is a sincere question…
EDIT: some are asking why not real Euros or Dollars? I was thinking convenience and availability. I’m not sure if you could just easily get dollars in Turkey.
Not just stable coins, holding many types of assets would help. It’s very common in many countries to hold savings in US dollars to avoid domestic currency fluctuations. Stable coins may be a convenient way to do achieve this goal, but also has counter party risk with the coin issuer.
Well you could if you are talking about usd stablecoin, but you could have also simply buy another currency be it euro, US dollar... as long as its value compared to the turkish lira was greater.
> Yust a question: would it have been a good idea for a Turkish person, say, a year ago, to invest in stable coins to prevent suffering from Lira depreciation?
> PS: This is a sincere question…
No.
PS: This is a sincere answer.
> PS: This is a sincere question…
No.
PS: This is a sincere answer.
Turkey banned crypto https://fortune.com/2021/04/30/turkey-crypto-ban-erdogan-cry...
Fake news. Turkey has some of the most active crypto exchanges in the world.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/exclusive-turkeys-cryptoc...
https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/exclusive-turkeys-cryptoc...
Nit: buying currencies shouldn't be an investment, but it can be speculation or a hedge.
Why not dollars, pounds, or euros?
[deleted]
Why not straight-up crypto? Ethereum is up 647% from a year ago.
I did a "dumb" crypto experiment to prove your question.
Just over a year ago (Nov 2020), I bought $100 of BTC and $100 of ETH... on Paypal of all places. Didn't touch it at all.
Today, it is worth $1221.37 (+510.32%).
ETH: $899.22 (+799.22%), BTC: $320.77 (+220.77%)
You're right mentioning ETH over BTC. =)
My plan is to donate this to charity.
Just over a year ago (Nov 2020), I bought $100 of BTC and $100 of ETH... on Paypal of all places. Didn't touch it at all.
Today, it is worth $1221.37 (+510.32%).
ETH: $899.22 (+799.22%), BTC: $320.77 (+220.77%)
You're right mentioning ETH over BTC. =)
My plan is to donate this to charity.
Crypto is especially known for stability.
More stable than the lira at this point
Define stable.
The poster above you stated that his/her $100 investments are now worth after 1 year:
> ETH: $899.22 (+799.22%), BTC: $320.77 (+220.77%)
The Turkish lira hasn't changed nearly that much in value.
The poster above you stated that his/her $100 investments are now worth after 1 year:
> ETH: $899.22 (+799.22%), BTC: $320.77 (+220.77%)
The Turkish lira hasn't changed nearly that much in value.
Azerbaijan v. Georgia? To heal? Tooze is good but needs to hire an amanuensis.
Indeed ... that's a sizeable error and it jumped out immediately. Hope the rest of the article is free of such mistakes!
Keep wondering if this is a panicking move or some weird long-term strategy. Are there any benefits to what they're doing, short- or long-term?
I looked up the core values of Turkey. And their debt to gdp ratio is 40%. Neighboring Greece is 200%. The Turkish economy was the second fastest growing economy last year in the G20 and is on pace to be the one of the fastest growing economies this year. Turkey has had record exports and been one of the most successful in tourism both last year and this year helping the current account deficit. Yet bankrupt Greece can borrow at almost 1% interest rate with over 200% debt-to-GDP ratio. Meanwhile there is an unofficial blockade on international lending to Turkey from the US and its cluster of allies/subjects. That is the real story of the attack on the currency and the financial system. The US did the same to Chile by undermining its economy and killing its financial system before staging a coup (Obama attempt to kill Erdogan and stage a coup in Turkey failed in 2016):
https://youtu.be/EYrznlDTE_M?t=7576
https://youtu.be/EYrznlDTE_M?t=7576
Dept to gdp of Turkey is 40%, if you believe official numbers. But they are not publishing numbers for dollar denominated guarantees to PPPs.
This is only one of the many unpublished “dept”s.
The more the Turkish lira devaluates, the more the public has to pay for the PPPs. Hence, when considering for creditworthiness, you need to account for all, not a single number.
This is only one of the many unpublished “dept”s.
The more the Turkish lira devaluates, the more the public has to pay for the PPPs. Hence, when considering for creditworthiness, you need to account for all, not a single number.
You're looking at the wrong metrics. Instead:
- Change in foreign reserves.
- Private debt to GDP, particularly denominated in EUR and USD.
- Turkish private bank debt to FX reserves, particularly denominated in EUR and USD.
Turkey's problem is having to pay for inputs in EUR or USD and interest payments in EUR or USD at the same time such reserves and the ability to acquire such reserves are in decline & increasing in cost.
- Change in foreign reserves.
- Private debt to GDP, particularly denominated in EUR and USD.
- Turkish private bank debt to FX reserves, particularly denominated in EUR and USD.
Turkey's problem is having to pay for inputs in EUR or USD and interest payments in EUR or USD at the same time such reserves and the ability to acquire such reserves are in decline & increasing in cost.
is this unexpected ? erdogan literally buys weapons from russia as a nato member, allies with putin at every occassion and disregards any civilized values. he'd like to squeeze minorities as he wants, oppress the opposition as he wants and ally with whoever he wants. at that point, people might not want to cooperate with you, a bit of diplomacy eh ?
Erdogan may use Putin when it suits him, but when the interests no longer allies, he has no problems acting very much against Russia wishes. Like it was in the recent war between Armenia and Azerbaijan or when Turkey sells weapons to Ukraine.
In the case of Armenia, the country was becoming a hotbead of CIA activity. So Putin wanted to make an example of it.
Russia allowed Azeris to win that war, just to show Armenia how vulnerable it is without Russian help. Plus, they now have troops patroling along the border with Nagorno-Karabah.
Russia allowed Azeris to win that war, just to show Armenia how vulnerable it is without Russian help. Plus, they now have troops patroling along the border with Nagorno-Karabah.
The US has always put arms embargoes and blockades on Turkey, even having formal ones in the 1960s and 1970s. The US also arms the terrorists in Turkeys south to attack and terrorize the country. According to CIA agent John Stockwell and others they have been arming those terrorists since the 1970s on Kissingers orders to attack Turkey. The US also refused to sell defensive systems to Turkey under the Obama blockade. The Turks bought it then instead from the Russians. Other NATO countries also have both Russian weaponry and the S-class defensive system like Greece, Bulgaria and Hungary. Turkey is clearly not competent enough to build it itself which is why it bought it.
So, he is acting like a leader who puts his country first? How is that bad?
If US doesn't want to sell weapons to Turkey, its NATO ally, is Turkey supposed to give up and stay defenceless against terrorists that attack its borders?
If US doesn't want to sell weapons to Turkey, its NATO ally, is Turkey supposed to give up and stay defenceless against terrorists that attack its borders?
> If US doesn't want to sell weaoons to Turkey
America is happy to sell to Turkey. Turkey wants to dual source. The U.S., reasonably, doesn’t want its latest stealth tech painted by Russian radars phoning home. Sometimes playing the middle ground helps. Sometimes it gets you a raw deal. In Turkey’s case, the people are losing.
America is happy to sell to Turkey. Turkey wants to dual source. The U.S., reasonably, doesn’t want its latest stealth tech painted by Russian radars phoning home. Sometimes playing the middle ground helps. Sometimes it gets you a raw deal. In Turkey’s case, the people are losing.
US refused to sell Patriot missile system to Turkey. It also refused to sell it's F-35 fighter jets before Turkey formally requested to buy S-400 anti-air missile system.
US knows that it cannot keep Turkey on a leash like it can, for example, France or Greece. So it does not want to sell it weapons, in case Turkey ever becomes a "problem" (read too powerful to control).
US knows that it cannot keep Turkey on a leash like it can, for example, France or Greece. So it does not want to sell it weapons, in case Turkey ever becomes a "problem" (read too powerful to control).
> in case Turkey ever becomes a "problem" (read too powerful to control)
Is this honestly the line Turks are being fed? The concern is Turkey becoming a failed state and terrorist hotbed, for the U.S. and Russia, and a new migrant source, for the EU. If Turkey could reliably project force in the region, it would solve a lot of American strategic problems.
Is this honestly the line Turks are being fed? The concern is Turkey becoming a failed state and terrorist hotbed, for the U.S. and Russia, and a new migrant source, for the EU. If Turkey could reliably project force in the region, it would solve a lot of American strategic problems.
"The concern is Turkey becoming a failed state..."
Of course, there is a real danger of that happening. Turkey can indeed become a failed state...if USA attempts another coup or color revolution.
Look, there are multitude of concurrent attacks, both military (inside Syria by using Kurds/SDF) and economic being made agains Turkey for it's failure to be a "good NATO ally". I don't like Erdogan, and I care not about what happens to him. Turks do, though.
Many people will die if Turkey turns into another Iraq, Libya or Syria. And I don't want that to happen.
Of course, there is a real danger of that happening. Turkey can indeed become a failed state...if USA attempts another coup or color revolution.
Look, there are multitude of concurrent attacks, both military (inside Syria by using Kurds/SDF) and economic being made agains Turkey for it's failure to be a "good NATO ally". I don't like Erdogan, and I care not about what happens to him. Turks do, though.
Many people will die if Turkey turns into another Iraq, Libya or Syria. And I don't want that to happen.
> if USA attempts another coup or color revolution
The article this thread attached to is about home-grown economic orbital bombardment. If the Anatolian elite can keep the populace distracted by phantom foreign threats, they’ll succeed in extracting their wealth before the house falls.
The article this thread attached to is about home-grown economic orbital bombardment. If the Anatolian elite can keep the populace distracted by phantom foreign threats, they’ll succeed in extracting their wealth before the house falls.
Any source on that claim that Obama was behind the coup attempt in 2016?
There are never any sources on these things until 20 years after the fact. So we really don't know. But if you'd gone ahead and assumed America had a hand in every coup in the Western world over the past century, you'd at least have a pretty good batting average.
[deleted]
I don't really disagree but... Greece is backed by Germany so they're a bad comparison. Without that backing they'd be Turkey right now.
You are correct. What many here don't realize is that the current financial system is directly tied to the wimps and wants of the USA.
Speculation abounds at Wall Street, London stock exchange and other western financial institutions. They are the ones dictating the price of money, the exchange rates and asset bubbles. They have the power to financialy attack any country in the world that does trade in US dollars and euros (almost all countries in the world). As we can see, even their "allies" are not spared.
Speculation abounds at Wall Street, London stock exchange and other western financial institutions. They are the ones dictating the price of money, the exchange rates and asset bubbles. They have the power to financialy attack any country in the world that does trade in US dollars and euros (almost all countries in the world). As we can see, even their "allies" are not spared.
Really quickly went from 0 to 100 at the end there
You are 100% true. But erdogan did buy russian weapons after the us forbade him to buy american ones. Turkey disobeid the american golem and must pay the price
During the recent coup calls to resist the belligerents were broadcast over mosque loudspeakers and throats were being slit in the street. Praises to Allah could be heard.
Ataturk strengthened Turkey by moving it away from the regional Islamic influences. He changed the alphabet and implemented laws to guide Turkey toward a secular culture. Islam was acceptable (as Turkey was attempting to be a "free" republic), but not compulsory.
If Erdoğan continues to mold Turkey's future Turkey will soon look more like Syria in terms of culture, and less like Western Europe, which it recently did.