5 ms·

He describes his nationalist policy as "America First" [1] and takes explicit action to disengage from global governance, foreign aid, etc. IMO this marks a re

He describes his nationalist policy as "America First" [1] and takes explicit action to disengage from global governance, foreign aid, etc. IMO this marks a retreat from many previous administrations. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_(policy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_(policy)

Covzire 8y ago
I keep hearing about changes to US foreign policy dictated by our self-sufficient oil drilling. The US is now a net oil exporter and has fewer stakes in maintaining order in certain parts of the world since WW2.
- mandelbrotwurst 8y ago
  In the short term. Historically the U.S. has avoided drilling much of its reserves preferring to use oil from foreign sources first, knowing that it would have its own remaining if those ever dried up, either literally or because they became untenable to access for whatever reason. If the U.S. uses up its reserves and doesn't drastically cut its consumption, it's no longer a net exporter. One potential solution: Use local reserves in the short term while redirecting military spending toward building sustainable / clean energy infrastructure domestically to avoid a scenario in which the country runs out of domestic reserves and is no longer able to obtain oil from foreign sources.
  - adventured 8y ago
    The US has at least a hundred years of oil remaining, and that's without properly exploring for oil off either massive coast using modern technology. That's also ignoring that gasoline is about to get demolished by electric cars, which will slash oil demand in a very dramatic manner. In likely terms, the US has enough oil for multiple centuries once it's no longer heavily used for transportation. And of course the US is neighbors with another huge oil producer up north that happens to have a small population. Mexico also likely has a lot of oil it's unaware of, near Texas, in the form of shale. Given it only has 500m people, North America is an energy reserves monster.
  - jerf 8y ago
    "Historically the U.S. has avoided drilling much of its reserves preferring to use oil from foreign sources first," Historically, shale oil was not economically viable. This has drastically changed the equations because suddenly available supply has shot up, rendering the old calculations moot. (Note I am not implying anything further other than what I said. There are good aspects to that, there are bad aspects to that, and there will be disagreement about which is which. I'm just saying the old strategy has been obsoleted by practical shale extraction.)
- datavirtue 8y ago
  Right. This shift started with Obama though. While he still carried out imperialistic activity the message in his campaign was to stop. We see this in a deluge of violence that is breaking out for which we have no stake or involvement. It reminds me of pre-ww2 where all this shit went down and the US and others where like...meh.
- XorNot 8y ago
  This is overstated though. Oil is fungible, and the US is not a vertically integrated supply chain even though it is (contrary to popular talking point) still the world's largest manufacturing exporter. Which means it needs to buy things from the outside, and trade something people want in return - that means oil. If you want to be stable on oil, it's either competing with international market or you're throwing up price controls and export restrictions to try and keep the price down. Do that, and your currency starts devaluing anyway making all those things you want more expensive.
rrggrr 8y ago
Global governance is not automatically positive, or equitable. The majority of Brits came to this conclusion in the Brexit vote. China arrived at this conclusion when the ICJ invalidated its Spratly Islands claim. Likely majorities in Greece, Italy and elsewhere are near to the same conclusion - particularly if/when German taxpayers become similarly disenchanted with supporting these countries deficits.
lolsal 8y ago
I can have a 'family first' policy about how I run my life, but that doesn't mean I might not be a good leader for other families to follow.
- addicted 8y ago
  You’re describing a role model, not a leader. You’re not a leader for those other families. You may be a good role model. A more appropriate equivalent would be standing for mayor of your town and saying you will be a good leader, but you will be putting your family’s interests ahead of everyone else.
  - lolsal 8y ago
    That's a very fair point - often those words are interchanged but they are actually different. My analogy was accidentally describing a role model. The mayor analogy is better, but the US President is not actually a leader of any other country, so I'm not sure that one is totally analogous either. Maybe at best the president leads by example, or is a role model, but not actually a leader (from my very limited understanding of world politics :P).
drak0n1c 8y ago
Whether you think it's for better or worse, how is independence from global governance moving the world away from freedom? Is diluting your vote on your nation's policies to include the rest of the world a necessary cost for having a free world?

Covzire 8y ago

I keep hearing about changes to US foreign policy dictated by our self-sufficient oil drilling. The US is now a net oil exporter and has fewer stakes in maintaining order in certain parts of the world since WW2.

mandelbrotwurst 8y ago
In the short term. Historically the U.S. has avoided drilling much of its reserves preferring to use oil from foreign sources first, knowing that it would have its own remaining if those ever dried up, either literally or because they became untenable to access for whatever reason. If the U.S. uses up its reserves and doesn't drastically cut its consumption, it's no longer a net exporter. One potential solution: Use local reserves in the short term while redirecting military spending toward building sustainable / clean energy infrastructure domestically to avoid a scenario in which the country runs out of domestic reserves and is no longer able to obtain oil from foreign sources.
- adventured 8y ago
  The US has at least a hundred years of oil remaining, and that's without properly exploring for oil off either massive coast using modern technology. That's also ignoring that gasoline is about to get demolished by electric cars, which will slash oil demand in a very dramatic manner. In likely terms, the US has enough oil for multiple centuries once it's no longer heavily used for transportation. And of course the US is neighbors with another huge oil producer up north that happens to have a small population. Mexico also likely has a lot of oil it's unaware of, near Texas, in the form of shale. Given it only has 500m people, North America is an energy reserves monster.
- jerf 8y ago
  "Historically the U.S. has avoided drilling much of its reserves preferring to use oil from foreign sources first," Historically, shale oil was not economically viable. This has drastically changed the equations because suddenly available supply has shot up, rendering the old calculations moot. (Note I am not implying anything further other than what I said. There are good aspects to that, there are bad aspects to that, and there will be disagreement about which is which. I'm just saying the old strategy has been obsoleted by practical shale extraction.)
datavirtue 8y ago
Right. This shift started with Obama though. While he still carried out imperialistic activity the message in his campaign was to stop. We see this in a deluge of violence that is breaking out for which we have no stake or involvement. It reminds me of pre-ww2 where all this shit went down and the US and others where like...meh.
XorNot 8y ago
This is overstated though. Oil is fungible, and the US is not a vertically integrated supply chain even though it is (contrary to popular talking point) still the world's largest manufacturing exporter. Which means it needs to buy things from the outside, and trade something people want in return - that means oil. If you want to be stable on oil, it's either competing with international market or you're throwing up price controls and export restrictions to try and keep the price down. Do that, and your currency starts devaluing anyway making all those things you want more expensive.

rrggrr 8y ago

Global governance is not automatically positive, or equitable. The majority of Brits came to this conclusion in the Brexit vote. China arrived at this conclusion when the ICJ invalidated its Spratly Islands claim. Likely majorities in Greece, Italy and elsewhere are near to the same conclusion - particularly if/when German taxpayers become similarly disenchanted with supporting these countries deficits.

lolsal 8y ago

I can have a 'family first' policy about how I run my life, but that doesn't mean I might not be a good leader for other families to follow.

addicted 8y ago
You’re describing a role model, not a leader. You’re not a leader for those other families. You may be a good role model. A more appropriate equivalent would be standing for mayor of your town and saying you will be a good leader, but you will be putting your family’s interests ahead of everyone else.
- lolsal 8y ago
  That's a very fair point - often those words are interchanged but they are actually different. My analogy was accidentally describing a role model. The mayor analogy is better, but the US President is not actually a leader of any other country, so I'm not sure that one is totally analogous either. Maybe at best the president leads by example, or is a role model, but not actually a leader (from my very limited understanding of world politics :P).

drak0n1c 8y ago

Whether you think it's for better or worse, how is independence from global governance moving the world away from freedom? Is diluting your vote on your nation's policies to include the rest of the world a necessary cost for having a free world?