6 ms·

This is an argument that Trump has been making for decades. He believes US is getting the short end of these deals because he sees the US almost as mob guys pro

This is an argument that Trump has been making for decades. He believes US is getting the short end of these deals because he sees the US almost as mob guys providing protection but forgetting to collect protection money. He sees the US as spending money protecting Japan, S. Korea, and Europe without getting proper return. I believe we've been getting peace and favorable trade deals in return. He thinks that isn't enough and that it's time to collect. The same thinking has him arguing that we should get the oil fields after the Iraq war. I don't agree with this reasoning but we're about to see this play out. Edit: here's a video that I linked to in my other comments. It's an Opera interview from 1988 where Trump says Japan is "beating the hell out of this country" and "they aren't paying" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEPs17_AkTI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEPs17_AkTI This has been the most consistent part of Trump's platform. America is getting the short end of the deal. Again, I'm not a Trump supporter but this policy is what Trump genuinely believes and will likely pursue.

jrockway 10y ago
> He thinks that isn't enough and that it's time to collect. Amazon sells their extra servers as a product. The US can start selling their extra nuclear weapons as a product. Business 101!
danblick 10y ago
First off let me clarify that I'm no Trump supporter either. :) That said, I've been reading a book called "The Accidental Superpower" that I find very insightful, and the author makes arguments similar to the ones you mentioned. He argues that since WW2 the US has defended free trade around the world (through "the Bretton Woods system") essentially "for free" - even though we shoulder the defense burden for the rest of the world we haven't used this to negotiate treaties that are biased in our favor. The author sees this system ending in the next 20 years (i.e., the US will no longer defend the world's commerce for free) and he spends a large portion of the book discussing how different countries around the world will have to adapt. A couple interesting notes: the author predicts that in a world with less free trade the US would do relatively well thanks to shale oil and our other natural resources (like rivers and rich farmlands). He also talks a lot about demographic changes. He says in the US this will cause some pain from ~2020-2030 as the baby boomers retire, but we'll recover as millennials enter the most productive years of their careers (40s-early 60s). However he also predicts much more dire consequences for Russia due to demographic changes, and suggests they might not recover from a decline starting around 2020. Compare: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Russia_Sex_by_Age_20150101.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Russia_Sex_by_Age_2015010... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USA_by_Sex_and_Age_2015-07-01.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USA_by_Sex_and_Age_2015-0... I can't repeat the entire analysis from the book in this box but I've found the author's comments to be thought-provoking so far. :) Of particular interest to the HN crowd, the author also argues that demographic issues mean that right now there is an unusually large amount of investable capital available, but this will soon change as baby boomers begin to retire and switch from accumulating and investing their money to trying to stretch what they've already earned to last the rest of their lives. He predicts we'll see much less money available for risky investments starting in the next few years, due simply to demographic changes around the world.
krisdol 10y ago
But he's not aware of the whole story. Japan is paying us money (billions, I think) to keep those bases there. I assume the same goes with other countries. This isn't free protection.
- braveo 10y ago
  but are they paying us what we expend? I think that's the point being made here. And I don't know the answer to that question, but it's important in this discussion.
  - danenania 10y ago
    If you have to pay the same amount either way, why not spend it on your own military? While you may not get quite the same level of firepower, it will be under your control and you won't have to worry about a newly elected president leaving you high and dry.
    - elevenfist 10y ago
      Because it gives both of us a firm ally and makes it far easier for us to coordinate.
- MichaelApproved 10y ago
  He just plainly thinks it's not enough. Here he is talking about how Japan is "beating the hell out of this country" and "they aren't paying" back in 1988 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEPs17_AkTI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEPs17_AkTI
  - TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
    He, Trump, started receiving intelligence briefings[1] at the same(?) level as Obama just a couple of days ago. So we should start to see him become more aware of the facts. What affect this has on him remains to be seen. 1. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-is-now-set-to-get-the-same-intelligence-briefing-as-president-obama-one-day-after-being-a7408056.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election...
sriram_sun 10y ago
Providing a launch pad for forward deployment of Armed forces is a pretty good deal IMO. Doing this helped the US keep USSR in check. Now assume that NATO never happened. Life would go on. These countries would be in a lot of debt, but they'd have their own armies for sure with the US twiddling their thumbs from across the ocean. Maybe Russia would've occupied a couple more countries. Although it seems these countries should pay up for protection money, consider the difference a rent that US is paying them for maintaining a military base. A quick google search gave me "...he United States still maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad.."
snowwrestler 10y ago
Exactly. He comes at it like a bean-counter, not a strategist.
- jfoutz 10y ago
  That's not necessarily bad. The civil war, world war 2 and the cold war are pretty obvious examples. You can't solve problems by just throwing money at them, but having money to throw at problems makes a lot of those problems much easier. I'm willing to revise my opinion of the guy. He's done two things i thought were impossible, winning the primary and the presidency. Maybe he will get that trillion dollar infrastructure program in place. I doubt it, but, at this point there's not much for me to do but wait and see.
  - sprafa 10y ago
    Many people have said the same thing before only to find themselves in a hopeless situation.
    - jfoutz 10y ago
      I'm having a hard time thinking of wealthy nations suddenly plundered. All i can come up with is the mongol invasion, and the conquest of the incas. The Incas are pretty marginal though, obsidian embedded in a stick isn't much use against toledo steel. Being powerful and picking the wrong fight seems like the usual collapse. The Spanish losing their armada, or Germany's first invasion of France. Help me out, remind me of some of those people, would you? edit Maybe Carthage falling to Rome? i don't know enough about the circumstances. I do remember something about Hannibal occupying most of Italy. further edit France falling to Germany is a pretty good example. I can't help but think sudden all out invasion of the US leads immediately to nuclear war. I dunno. backing away from playing world cop might be the worst thing ever. I'm just not smart enough to foresee what that world might look like. I'd hope some sort of international organization would be founded to pick up the slack, and the U.S. would play a role in that. Really, the election is over. all i can do at this point is watch what happens.
TorKlingberg 10y ago
It has also greatly benefited America during the whole post-war period. It is not a coincidence that the world's consumers are spending much of their money on products from American companies. Whether the American lower class gets a share of the profits is an other question of course. This goes for tech too. American companies like Uber, Netflix, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Apple have been able dominate most of the world market. In a protectionist world they will be locked out, just like they are in China today.
- mcv 10y ago
  Yeah, whatever you may think of the American hegemony since WW2, that's what made America the #1 world power. Drop that, and the US will just be one of many. And on the one hand, I think that might be good; I'm not a fan of hegemony and imperialism. But for all its faults, the US is at least a democracy, unlike Russia and China. As a European, I strongly prefer American hegemony over Russian hegemony. But maybe it's time for the EU to finally stand on its own feet and take up the leadership of the free world. Hopefully more benevolently than the US, although recent events don't look very hopeful there either.
  - brianwawok 10y ago
    With brexit doesn't seem that likely either
    - mcv 10y ago
      Brexit could actually work out well for a more united EU. The UK has always been one of the biggest opponents of further European integration. Without the UK, it might actually happen.
      - brianwawok 10y ago
        That is a theory I had not heard. And the economy will not be missed, even when trying to fix the ships that are Greece and Italy and Spain? At some point it seems like Germany can't have the only economy propping up the rest of the EU
msabalau 10y ago
Unfortunately, it does seem likely that "Make America Athens losing the Peloponnesian War (again)" is the policy objective. If one wanted to look on the bright side, there's a chance that "I am a master businessman who can cut better deals" is a merely way to have something say about foreign policy without having to go to the effort of thinking about it.

jrockway 10y ago

> He thinks that isn't enough and that it's time to collect. Amazon sells their extra servers as a product. The US can start selling their extra nuclear weapons as a product. Business 101!

danblick 10y ago

First off let me clarify that I'm no Trump supporter either. :) That said, I've been reading a book called "The Accidental Superpower" that I find very insightful, and the author makes arguments similar to the ones you mentioned. He argues that since WW2 the US has defended free trade around the world (through "the Bretton Woods system") essentially "for free" - even though we shoulder the defense burden for the rest of the world we haven't used this to negotiate treaties that are biased in our favor. The author sees this system ending in the next 20 years (i.e., the US will no longer defend the world's commerce for free) and he spends a large portion of the book discussing how different countries around the world will have to adapt. A couple interesting notes: the author predicts that in a world with less free trade the US would do relatively well thanks to shale oil and our other natural resources (like rivers and rich farmlands). He also talks a lot about demographic changes. He says in the US this will cause some pain from ~2020-2030 as the baby boomers retire, but we'll recover as millennials enter the most productive years of their careers (40s-early 60s). However he also predicts much more dire consequences for Russia due to demographic changes, and suggests they might not recover from a decline starting around 2020. Compare: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Russia_Sex_by_Age_20150101.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Russia_Sex_by_Age_2015010... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USA_by_Sex_and_Age_2015-07-01.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USA_by_Sex_and_Age_2015-0... I can't repeat the entire analysis from the book in this box but I've found the author's comments to be thought-provoking so far. :) Of particular interest to the HN crowd, the author also argues that demographic issues mean that right now there is an unusually large amount of investable capital available, but this will soon change as baby boomers begin to retire and switch from accumulating and investing their money to trying to stretch what they've already earned to last the rest of their lives. He predicts we'll see much less money available for risky investments starting in the next few years, due simply to demographic changes around the world.

krisdol 10y ago

But he's not aware of the whole story. Japan is paying us money (billions, I think) to keep those bases there. I assume the same goes with other countries. This isn't free protection.

braveo 10y ago
but are they paying us what we expend? I think that's the point being made here. And I don't know the answer to that question, but it's important in this discussion.
- danenania 10y ago
  If you have to pay the same amount either way, why not spend it on your own military? While you may not get quite the same level of firepower, it will be under your control and you won't have to worry about a newly elected president leaving you high and dry.
  - elevenfist 10y ago
    Because it gives both of us a firm ally and makes it far easier for us to coordinate.
MichaelApproved 10y ago
He just plainly thinks it's not enough. Here he is talking about how Japan is "beating the hell out of this country" and "they aren't paying" back in 1988 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEPs17_AkTI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEPs17_AkTI
- TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
  He, Trump, started receiving intelligence briefings[1] at the same(?) level as Obama just a couple of days ago. So we should start to see him become more aware of the facts. What affect this has on him remains to be seen. 1. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-is-now-set-to-get-the-same-intelligence-briefing-as-president-obama-one-day-after-being-a7408056.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election...

sriram_sun 10y ago

Providing a launch pad for forward deployment of Armed forces is a pretty good deal IMO. Doing this helped the US keep USSR in check. Now assume that NATO never happened. Life would go on. These countries would be in a lot of debt, but they'd have their own armies for sure with the US twiddling their thumbs from across the ocean. Maybe Russia would've occupied a couple more countries. Although it seems these countries should pay up for protection money, consider the difference a rent that US is paying them for maintaining a military base. A quick google search gave me "...he United States still maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad.."

snowwrestler 10y ago

Exactly. He comes at it like a bean-counter, not a strategist.

jfoutz 10y ago
That's not necessarily bad. The civil war, world war 2 and the cold war are pretty obvious examples. You can't solve problems by just throwing money at them, but having money to throw at problems makes a lot of those problems much easier. I'm willing to revise my opinion of the guy. He's done two things i thought were impossible, winning the primary and the presidency. Maybe he will get that trillion dollar infrastructure program in place. I doubt it, but, at this point there's not much for me to do but wait and see.
- sprafa 10y ago
  Many people have said the same thing before only to find themselves in a hopeless situation.
  - jfoutz 10y ago
    I'm having a hard time thinking of wealthy nations suddenly plundered. All i can come up with is the mongol invasion, and the conquest of the incas. The Incas are pretty marginal though, obsidian embedded in a stick isn't much use against toledo steel. Being powerful and picking the wrong fight seems like the usual collapse. The Spanish losing their armada, or Germany's first invasion of France. Help me out, remind me of some of those people, would you? edit Maybe Carthage falling to Rome? i don't know enough about the circumstances. I do remember something about Hannibal occupying most of Italy. further edit France falling to Germany is a pretty good example. I can't help but think sudden all out invasion of the US leads immediately to nuclear war. I dunno. backing away from playing world cop might be the worst thing ever. I'm just not smart enough to foresee what that world might look like. I'd hope some sort of international organization would be founded to pick up the slack, and the U.S. would play a role in that. Really, the election is over. all i can do at this point is watch what happens.

TorKlingberg 10y ago

It has also greatly benefited America during the whole post-war period. It is not a coincidence that the world's consumers are spending much of their money on products from American companies. Whether the American lower class gets a share of the profits is an other question of course. This goes for tech too. American companies like Uber, Netflix, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Apple have been able dominate most of the world market. In a protectionist world they will be locked out, just like they are in China today.

mcv 10y ago
Yeah, whatever you may think of the American hegemony since WW2, that's what made America the #1 world power. Drop that, and the US will just be one of many. And on the one hand, I think that might be good; I'm not a fan of hegemony and imperialism. But for all its faults, the US is at least a democracy, unlike Russia and China. As a European, I strongly prefer American hegemony over Russian hegemony. But maybe it's time for the EU to finally stand on its own feet and take up the leadership of the free world. Hopefully more benevolently than the US, although recent events don't look very hopeful there either.
- brianwawok 10y ago
  With brexit doesn't seem that likely either
  - mcv 10y ago
    Brexit could actually work out well for a more united EU. The UK has always been one of the biggest opponents of further European integration. Without the UK, it might actually happen.
    - brianwawok 10y ago
      That is a theory I had not heard. And the economy will not be missed, even when trying to fix the ships that are Greece and Italy and Spain? At some point it seems like Germany can't have the only economy propping up the rest of the EU

msabalau 10y ago

Unfortunately, it does seem likely that "Make America Athens losing the Peloponnesian War (again)" is the policy objective. If one wanted to look on the bright side, there's a chance that "I am a master businessman who can cut better deals" is a merely way to have something say about foreign policy without having to go to the effort of thinking about it.