7 ms·
Similar to "follow the money", on a world view, who benefits from isolationism and breaking up western alliances? trump: isolation + lessen ties with europe.
by jimjimjim 9y ago
Similar to "follow the money", on a world view, who benefits from isolationism and breaking up western alliances?
trump: isolation + lessen ties with europe.
le pen: isolation + lessen ties with europe.
brexit: isolation + lessen ties with europe.
now, who benefits?
who benefits from a weakened europe.
- who-benefits 9y agoEuropeans
- pottersbasilisk 9y agoThe working classes, and who does it hurt? International Bankers.
- redwood 9y agoClearly Putin. If you make democracy look untenable it becomes less threatening to an autocrat.
- fixxer 9y agoOr me, since I want isolation and fewer ties to Europe.
- CCing 9y agoWhy ?
- fixxer 9y agoI don't support free trade when the comparative advantage is the cost of labor. I don't support Europe's socialist ideals. Edit: awww, downvote. One less fake internet point :(
- jpkeisala 9y agoWhat do you mean by Europe's socialist ideals?
- ItendToDisagree 9y agoHe means having a social safety net and ensuring that those who are less fortunate in life actually have healthcare (among other things).
- gertef 9y agoPutin is not the only autocrat or autocrat-wannabe. Not even close. There's shades of a tech anology: remember teh 1990s when Microsoft was the big bad monopoly, and it crushed competitors such as democratic Linux, and also... Apple, who would have been the same monopoly or worse, if only they hadn't lost to Microsoft
- cloakandswagger 9y agoIt only took two minutes for someone to answer a clearly rhetorical question.
- davesque 9y agoI suppose it's still worth stating explicitly.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- digitalmaster 9y agoR
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- lucasmullens 9y agoWell, Trump supporters believe it benefits the US, Le Pen supporters believe it benefits France, and Brexit supporters believe it benefits the UK. You and I and most of HN disagree with them, but it's not as objective as you make it sound.
- davidf18 9y agoWell, the reason for the success of Trump, BrExit, and perhaps Le Pen is that the standard political elites (Dems and Republican in US, Labor and Conservatives in Britain) and the media ignored the harms to the working class from globalization through global labor arbitrage (exporting labor through trade, importing labor through immigration of cheap labor).
- hackuser 9y agoThat is a common claim, but at this point it's not adding anything to repeat it. Where is the research and evidence?
- davidf18 9y agoMar 2016: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/07/donald-trump-why-americans-support https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/07/donald... mid-July 2016, post BrExit: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/19/revenge-against-elites-americas-wake-up https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/19/reveng... The elites were ignoring their own voters and listened only to those with money (Wall Street, tech leadership) who wanted cheaper labor through global labor arbitrage (eg, through exporting work to lower wage countries, illegal alien reform making 11 million illegal low-wage residents legal, increasing the number of H1-B Visas). Trump spent almost half the money as Clinton and he did not take money from tech elite (except Peter Thiel) or from Wall Street elite. The remaining Dems except Sanders and all other Republicans sold out which is exactly what Trump was claiming. Instead of addressing the global arbitrage problems caused by global trade, the elites resort to ad hominem of Trump voters as Hilary Clinton said, "a basketful of deplorables." In France, there are similar issues which is why Le Pen is doing so well. The French elites are ignoring the harms of global labor arbitrage from globalization to normal non-elite people.
- dahdum 9y agoUnited States, Britain, and France benefit most I'd think. Aren't each large and powerful enough to strong arm neighbors into favorable trade deals if the EU dies? Along with NATO renegotiation? Trump campaigned on slogans like "We don't win anymore". I think he's trying to choose and court a winning team (Britain, China, etc.). Once the gang is together they'll go raid the world economically. So in my opinion not isolationist, but I could be all wrong. edit: Since it'll probably come up...I don't support this plan.
- abritinthebay 9y ago> Aren't each large and powerful enough to strong arm neighbors into favorable trade deals if the EU dies? That's a BIG if. It's also not likely, and without it the answer is a resounding "no".
- threeseed 9y agoWhat ? This makes absolutely no sense. The collapse of the EU will firstly send the world into a recession which given how perilous some countries economies are could take decades to get out of. And given that France IS Europe they would be affected the most. They depend on free trade within the EU and the Schengen has done wonders for their economy. Britain would be ruined given how important EU is to them. US would probably suffer the least but still they depend on NATO as a bulwark against Russian aggression. Also not sure what on earth "winning team" means. There are no simplistic winners or losers. Some countries have advantages in some areas, disadvantages in others. But everyone depends on global stability, free trade and efficient movement of human capital.
- dahdum 9y agoYes if the EU collapsed recession seems inevitable, but what if it slowly fades? New trade agreements will be made, benefiting some more than others, just like the EU did when it formed. 'Also not sure what on earth "winning team" means.' Economic aggressor would be another way of putting it. For instance, threatening Canada & Mexico for concessions to NATO that benefit the US. Pulling out of the TPP in order to negotiate 1-1 deals. 'Some countries have advantages in some areas, disadvantages in others. But everyone depends on global stability, free trade and efficient movement of human capital.' Do we really have those things now? I see a Europe dominated by German interests, treating Greece and others as vassal states. US/CA colonialism over an entire continent. Russia desperately trying rebuild their sphere, and every other regional power exploiting what they can. Perhaps I just have a grim view of the world.
- jameslk 9y agoA good follow up question would be "where's the proof?" Until that proof is provided, a conspiracy theory is no more useful than any other belief. It's good to be skeptical, but once it starts to mobilize into a force, it becomes a witch hunt. In the case of national security issues, that usually comes with the consequences of stripping away liberties, creating black lists of individuals/groups and hardening the surveillance state.
- hackuser 9y ago> where's the proof? That gives foreign intelligence agencies license to interfere in your country and others, for they rarely leave proof, if they are any good, and much evidence is classified. Shall we just give them free reign? Is the Russian FSB innocent until proven guilty?
- jameslk 9y agoGive whom free reign? Your chosen bogeyman? If we're going to go down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole, who's to say that the conspiracy is not being committed by our own governments to instill fear of other governments and to strip away our rights? Just because you trust your government more or what? What ability do you have to ride on your claims if you can't back them up?
- zakk 9y agoVery debated issue, but many think that the Souther countries (Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal) may have a lot of benefits from a weakened Europe.
- threeseed 9y agoSure but those benefits pale in comparison to all of the problems. Weaker Europe means less money for business subsidies e.g. agriculture, less travel and tourism, less household income to spend on consumables, less trade. And how exactly does a weaker Euro benefit those countries ?
- zakk 9y agoItaly contributes more money to Europe's balance than it gets back. So a weaker, smaller Europe would mean that more money remains in Italy. Also weaker EU does not mean collapse of EU, so tourism would be the same, as would be trade. I am not necessarily an advocate of this solution, however, just pointing out that the current status of EU is not the best possible world for each one of its 27 members States.
- ItendToDisagree 9y agoIs it possible to have a 27 state (or 50 state) situation that benefits all members equally though? History would seem to say no.
- zakk 9y agoSome say that the free market is an advantage to everyone. Other say that that in the end it's always a zero sum game, as you do. However, in the latter case, given that participation to the EU is on a voluntary basis, more and more countries may decide to exit.
- linkregister 9y agoReduced trade and tourism would only deepen their inability to make payments on their Euro-denominated debts and receive additional financing. Keeping their sovereign currencies was probably wise for Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia, etc., since they can devalue to match trade imbalances.
- CriticalSection 9y agoThe US government bankrolls the self-described "National Endowment for Democracy", which openly boasts ( http://www.ned.org/region/central-and-eastern-europe/ http://www.ned.org/region/central-and-eastern-europe/ ) of meddling in Russian and other elections. Macron and his supporters talk the same way. If the US and France are going to meddle in Russia's elections and affairs, what is the big surprise if Russia does the same? Insofar as who benefits from "isolationism" and breaking up western [military] alliances, the answer is me, an American worker and taxpayer. I gain nothing with my tax money going to kill or rape some Vietnamese farmer, or overthrow an elected government in Ukraine. Trump has a lot of negatives, but that does not apply to whatever notions he has of not getting the US involved overseas militarily more than he already as.
- hackuser 9y agoThese aren't the same things at all. The U.S. / NED did not hack Russian politician's computers and spread disinformation about them. However, it is standard Russian propaganda to make wild allegations of equivalencies every time they do something wrong. 'We invaded Ukraine? What about Serbia? Texas?'
- CriticalSection 9y ago> spread disinformation about them Then why does Voice of America have a Russian language TV and radio broadcast? All it does is spread disinformation about Russia. There's no proof Russia hacked into these computers. The US hacks into foreign computers all the time - the US created Stuxnet, perhaps with the Israelis. Thomas Reed from the NSC said the CIA got software into a Russian pipeline (in the 1980s!) that blew it up. Never mind spying, they bragged about explosions that disrupted oil pipelines in the 1980s and could have killed people. I think most people on this board are under the age of 50, and an international audience, and the "wild allegations" are not what I said, but that this is all "standard Russian propaganda". The Democrats have more-or-less been saying that Trump and his cabinet are all Russian agents, and it's making the Democrats look a little loony. They'd be better off pointing out Trump's errors, which are often bad enough.