6 ms·

It's also fair that no country controls the world currency, has military supremacy, intervenes politicaly, economicaly and militarily all around the world, and

It's also fair that no country controls the world currency, has military supremacy, intervenes politicaly, economicaly and militarily all around the world, and basicaly bullies the rest of the world. A more balanced world would be a better place. As it stands, I am of the impression that the weakness of the US regarding trade is the only factor that can balance the power ratios in the world. It is extremely unfair to pick on the one matter were you are "losing" and pretend that it is morally imperative to fix it, without taking into account the whole picture.

sheepmullet 8y ago
> A more balanced world would be a better place. How do you figure? Under the “US empire” the world has had more progress and less conflict than ever before.
- gonvaled 8y ago
  Ask that to the Vietnamese, all central and south america, the Irakies, the Palestinian, the Afgans, ... Edit: heck, ask that to the Americans. Inequality in your homeland is rampant. What you call American Empire is known also by Globalization, and it seems that is not very popular in the US right now. Anyway, that decission is not for the US to make, and I reckon the whole world would prefer a more balanced situation.
  - sheepmullet 8y ago
    I’m not claiming the US is perfect. I’m asking what makes you think a more balanced world would have been better? > Inequality in your homeland is rampant. What you call American Empire is known also by Globalization, and it seems that is not very popular in the US right now. Yes. We believe the “American Empire” has been far too altruistic towards other nations and ignored its own people.... I don’t think that really helps your argument.
    - gonvaled 8y ago
      > Yes. We believe the “American Empire” has been far too altruistic towards other nations and ignored its own people.... We believe that: 1) The US has been extremely egoistical, by more than making up for the losses it has endured on trade by manipulating the global economy through the use of its monopoly on the dollar. Also by plundering resources all around the world (see Irak war for example). 2) That the economic problems of the US are of its own making, by buying into the fantasy of the American dream and letting its politicians funnel all richess to the 1 percenters, while promising that the money will trickle down.
      - EdwardDiego 8y ago
        > by manipulating the global economy through the use of its monopoly on the dollar If you believe that France, or Germany, or any other members of the EU wouldn't have done the same had their currency become the global default by dint of being the largest economy on the world, you're kidding yourself.
        gonvaled 8y ago
        And they would have been justly critizized for that.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - sheepmullet 8y ago
        > We believe that: 1) In this context why does it matter what you believe? America doesn’t need your permission to fight for fairer trade deals. 2) I don’t think you understand Americans or our problems. A 10% increase in tax revenues by focusing on the uber-wealthy will not fix our structural problems.
        gonvaled 8y ago
        > America doesn’t need your permission to fight for fairer trade deals. We know you do not need permission, and even when you pretend to get it (Irak war), you do it by blatantly lying. You will not sell to the world that your fight is fair though. > A 10% increase in tax revenues by focusing on the uber-wealthy will not fix our structural problems. Your structural problems are not our problem - that is, as long as you are being confrontational. The world can be convinced to be more sensitive to the US's issues if the US shows sensitivity for the world's issues. You want a fairer trade? Great! Let's do that. Let's eliminate at the same time the dollar as a huge distorting factor.
  - EdwardDiego 8y ago
    The American century has been vastly better for the world than the previous centuries of colonial European powers - you reference South America and Mesoamerica, well, the US have had far less of an impact than the Spanish and Portugese ever accomplished... and don't forget that the colonial Europeans created the country of Iraq, created the issues in the Levant (Balfour Declaration etc.) and also routinely fought and killed the Afghanis. To paraphrase Churchill - the American century is the worst form of global hegemony, except for all the others. Personally, I would much rather have lived my life under the purview of the USA than the Soviet Union or China, simply because, despite its excesses and hamfisted anticommunist coups, it is a country with values that consider the individual to be of value as a matter of course.
    - gonvaled 8y ago
      The US has been better than the English / Spanish, right. But we are living in a different era: an era of enligntment, democracy and globalization, where multilateralism had a good chance to succeed. The crime of the US is not that it has been worse than the past empires: it is that is has killed, for good and for a long time to come, one of the rare chances that we had of creating a world community with strong international institutions, government by the strength of the law and not the law of the strong. For that reason you will not find much sympathy around the world.
      - EdwardDiego 8y ago
        I would argue that the US century was necessary to bring us to the place where your vision of a world community is even possible. It was the US that sheltered fragile Western Europe post WW2 from the Soviets and thus gave room for the EU to be born. I'm not sure how you'd envisage such a multilateral world developing naturally from the imperialist days of the Great Game.
        gonvaled 8y ago
        Those were the days! That is the kind of leadership we would like from the US. Not only paying lip service, but leading by example: ceding power and transferring it, step by step, to international, independent bodies, as it happened when the UN, the World Bank, the IMF, the WTO were created (not that those are without political influence at the moment). That is the kind of US that we admire. But that US does sadly not exist anymore, and the world is awaking to that fact.

sheepmullet 8y ago

> A more balanced world would be a better place. How do you figure? Under the “US empire” the world has had more progress and less conflict than ever before.

gonvaled 8y ago
Ask that to the Vietnamese, all central and south america, the Irakies, the Palestinian, the Afgans, ... Edit: heck, ask that to the Americans. Inequality in your homeland is rampant. What you call American Empire is known also by Globalization, and it seems that is not very popular in the US right now. Anyway, that decission is not for the US to make, and I reckon the whole world would prefer a more balanced situation.
- sheepmullet 8y ago
  I’m not claiming the US is perfect. I’m asking what makes you think a more balanced world would have been better? > Inequality in your homeland is rampant. What you call American Empire is known also by Globalization, and it seems that is not very popular in the US right now. Yes. We believe the “American Empire” has been far too altruistic towards other nations and ignored its own people.... I don’t think that really helps your argument.
  - gonvaled 8y ago
    > Yes. We believe the “American Empire” has been far too altruistic towards other nations and ignored its own people.... We believe that: 1) The US has been extremely egoistical, by more than making up for the losses it has endured on trade by manipulating the global economy through the use of its monopoly on the dollar. Also by plundering resources all around the world (see Irak war for example). 2) That the economic problems of the US are of its own making, by buying into the fantasy of the American dream and letting its politicians funnel all richess to the 1 percenters, while promising that the money will trickle down.
    - EdwardDiego 8y ago
      > by manipulating the global economy through the use of its monopoly on the dollar If you believe that France, or Germany, or any other members of the EU wouldn't have done the same had their currency become the global default by dint of being the largest economy on the world, you're kidding yourself.
      - gonvaled 8y ago
        And they would have been justly critizized for that.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - sheepmullet 8y ago
      > We believe that: 1) In this context why does it matter what you believe? America doesn’t need your permission to fight for fairer trade deals. 2) I don’t think you understand Americans or our problems. A 10% increase in tax revenues by focusing on the uber-wealthy will not fix our structural problems.
      - gonvaled 8y ago
        > America doesn’t need your permission to fight for fairer trade deals. We know you do not need permission, and even when you pretend to get it (Irak war), you do it by blatantly lying. You will not sell to the world that your fight is fair though. > A 10% increase in tax revenues by focusing on the uber-wealthy will not fix our structural problems. Your structural problems are not our problem - that is, as long as you are being confrontational. The world can be convinced to be more sensitive to the US's issues if the US shows sensitivity for the world's issues. You want a fairer trade? Great! Let's do that. Let's eliminate at the same time the dollar as a huge distorting factor.
- EdwardDiego 8y ago
  The American century has been vastly better for the world than the previous centuries of colonial European powers - you reference South America and Mesoamerica, well, the US have had far less of an impact than the Spanish and Portugese ever accomplished... and don't forget that the colonial Europeans created the country of Iraq, created the issues in the Levant (Balfour Declaration etc.) and also routinely fought and killed the Afghanis. To paraphrase Churchill - the American century is the worst form of global hegemony, except for all the others. Personally, I would much rather have lived my life under the purview of the USA than the Soviet Union or China, simply because, despite its excesses and hamfisted anticommunist coups, it is a country with values that consider the individual to be of value as a matter of course.
  - gonvaled 8y ago
    The US has been better than the English / Spanish, right. But we are living in a different era: an era of enligntment, democracy and globalization, where multilateralism had a good chance to succeed. The crime of the US is not that it has been worse than the past empires: it is that is has killed, for good and for a long time to come, one of the rare chances that we had of creating a world community with strong international institutions, government by the strength of the law and not the law of the strong. For that reason you will not find much sympathy around the world.
    - EdwardDiego 8y ago
      I would argue that the US century was necessary to bring us to the place where your vision of a world community is even possible. It was the US that sheltered fragile Western Europe post WW2 from the Soviets and thus gave room for the EU to be born. I'm not sure how you'd envisage such a multilateral world developing naturally from the imperialist days of the Great Game.
      - gonvaled 8y ago
        Those were the days! That is the kind of leadership we would like from the US. Not only paying lip service, but leading by example: ceding power and transferring it, step by step, to international, independent bodies, as it happened when the UN, the World Bank, the IMF, the WTO were created (not that those are without political influence at the moment). That is the kind of US that we admire. But that US does sadly not exist anymore, and the world is awaking to that fact.