Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

I would prefer for the phaseout to be as nonviolent as possible. Basically, the international equivalent of "We really dont need your services. We arent really opposed to your offering them, but we can get our needs met elsewhere, and wish to do so."

Right now, the US is the biggest game in town, and everyone wants a slice.  Increasing the rest of the global economy to the point where the US is not as important, is only a good thing.

To get there, the rest of the world has to want to grow to be large enough to eclipse the US's economic power. Currently, the US employs all manner of negative incentives to keep that from happening, and in no small part, those actions are responsible for the negative view of my country.

At the expense of becoming irrelevant, my country can become less hated, and the world at large can become more prosperous.  I dont think being the center of attention is worth all the problems we make for ourselves or for the world.

[smjjames]

China is more or less on a trajectory to do just that, though they have to survive their own economic problems first.

[wierd]

In trump news:

Fancy NYC luncheon disrupted by protestors.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/protesters-disrupt-donald-trump-speech-nyc-luncheon-35720924

[mainiac]

To get there, the rest of the world has to want to grow to be large enough to eclipse the US's economic power. Currently, the US employs all manner of negative incentives to keep that from happening, and in no small part, those actions are responsible for the negative view of my country.

Do you remember when the US put sanctions on Russia?  How the Russian economy nose-dived?

These sanctions weren't even particularly adversarial sanctions.  The US didn't seize Russian assets abroad like it did for Iran until recently.  The US allowed Russian businesses to keep investing in the US and keep freely converting dollars to rubles.  All the US did was stop helping Russia.  Russia couldn't get investors in the US or buy equipment for a few industries in the US.  Europe followed suit.

The effect was pretty big:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/russia/gdp-growth

The main reason for that is because American and European financing was the only reliable financing for Russian companies.  Russian investment banking is crippled for reasons of political economy.  So access to American finance was one of the key things that was propelling Russian growth in the Putin years.  In fact the Bush and Obama adminstrations have been accused of being pro-Putin.

[wierd]

That sounds like more a cautionary tale on why monopolies are bad.

When you only have a small selection of people to get things from, and they all decide to stop selling to you, you get boned-- hard.

Thankfully, that is not what I was advocating. I was advocating for more world powers to mature to the point where they can offer services on par with the US, thus rendering the monopoly position of the US as something that no longer exists.

When there are enough actors in the market, the action of a handful of them becomes less significant to the stability of the whole.

[wierd]

Speaking of monopolies, actors, and consequences--

DuPont and Dow Chemical plan to merge, then split into 3, non-competing agencies.
Wonder why regulatory agencies are giving them scrutiny.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/12/business/dealbook/dow-chemical-and-dupont-merger.html?ref=dealbook&_r=1

[Shadowlord]

Well, Bush said he looked into Putin's soul and saw he was good, so..

[wierd]

Really/ Putin is so skull-fuckingly transparent it pains me to see the world press treat him the way they do.

[mainiac]

Thankfully, that is not what I was advocating. I was advocating for more world powers to mature to the point where they can offer services on par with the US, thus rendering the monopoly position of the US as something that no longer exists.

I wasn't talking about what you were advocating, I was talking about the reality as it exists today and the inconsistancies with your picture of "America holding people back".

In fact we live in an era where global institutions are letting other countries catch up at an unprecedented rate.

[wierd]

I did not mean to imply that "what I would like to see happen", and "what is currently happening/can happen" were the same thing.

I am well aware of the difference. The former is wishful thinking, the latter is sober reality.

Be that as it may, the US currently DOES do some nasty things internationally to forward its economic interests, especially in places like south america.

[BFEL]

I'm with MetalSlimeHunt on this. Yeah, there are a LOT of things wrong with Trump (crazywall comes to mind) but I see him as doing one of two things. Either he does what MSH says and bursts the bubble of our political stagnation, or he does what wierd thinks and goes full Hitler.

And if he goes full Hitler, we'll oppose him.
Because wierd the problem with the US being the source of Authoritarianism in the world is that its doing it SLOWLY. Right now no one in our country is really all that upset about it because its just happening so damn gradually that no one is noticing it past the screens of their shiny new IPhone.

Its the ol' frog in the pot problem.
With Hillary, or hell ANY other candidate, it will just keep slowly sucking up all the freedoms it can get its Cthonian claws on until they're all gone and we won't even notice because it never SHOCKED us.

If we elect Trump however, and worst case scenario happens, then BOOM FASCISM WE WERE THE BAD GUY ALL ALONG! And then people will NOTICE that we fucked up.

When all your choices are to fuck up, pick the one that's most obvious and visible. Because then someone will see it, laugh, and then come and help.

[Shadowlord]

Yes, because that worked out so well with the Nazis and Bolsheviks.

[mainiac]

I did not mean to imply that "what I would like to see happen", and "what is currently happening/can happen" were the same thing.

And no part of my post remotely hinted at saying I thought that.

Be that as it may, the US currently DOES do some nasty things internationally to forward its economic interests, especially in places like south america.

You wouldn't happen to be a time traveler from the 1980s, would you?

[smjjames]

Speaking of monopolies, actors, and consequences--

DuPont and Dow Chemical plan to merge, then split into 3, non-competing agencies.
Wonder why regulatory agencies are giving them scrutiny.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/12/business/dealbook/dow-chemical-and-dupont-merger.html?ref=dealbook&_r=1

Why are we even allowing the merger in the first place? Whatever happened to Theodore Roosevelt era anti-monopoly breakups? Hell, I think we've failed the whole anti-monopoiy thing because we keep letting big companies merge with each other and letting big companies gobble up more. Heck, why don't we break up the likes of Pepsi and Cocoa Cola? Though the competition between the two is actually at a pretty healthy level.

[wierd]

I did not mean to imply that "what I would like to see happen", and "what is currently happening/can happen" were the same thing.

And no part of my post remotely hinted at saying I thought that.

Be that as it may, the US currently DOES do some nasty things internationally to forward its economic interests, especially in places like south america.

You wouldn't happen to be a time traveler from the 1980s, would you?

Well... 1982 for me, but still......