4 ms·

A habit... really? Based on examples from two centuries past?

jazzyjackson 8y ago
The purpose of the US Navy is to keep trade routes open. When countries close their ports we have an absolute conniption. The entire 20th century was a war between globalization and the self-sufficient dream of communism (I don't know why they couldn't find a happy compromise myself, but alas) -- a fight to keep "trade" flowing -- this often manifests in the west extracting resources from less powerful countries (not saying Soviet Russia never extracted resources from poorer countries) I don't have all the answers but USA is out for itself just the same as everyone else is.
- ianai 8y ago
  I think you’re conflating topics, concepts, and history. I was talking about international trade and macroeconomics - primarily the last 30-50 years. The Churchill quote seems relevant as well but still off topic: “democracy is the worst government except for all the other governments tried through time.” (Paraphrased.) Every international trade has an associated international currency exchange. China’s manipulated its global position through exchanging more of its currency for USD than the market clearing rate for decades. This had the affect of setting their entire economy on “fire sale” prices, also for decades. They only acknowledge the existence of Chinese IP rights owned by Chinese companies. Etc,etc,...There are books on these topics. During that timeframe the US government has worked unilaterally and internationally to combat the dotCom bust, the S&L crisis of the 80s, and the Great Recession, amongst other things. A good trade actor has many things, including a relatively stable currency and financial system. The US isn’t some paragon of perfection, but they have done some identifiably good international trade measures.
- nate_meurer 8y ago
  > The purpose of the US Navy is to keep trade routes open. That's an important function of every blue-water navy, but it's hardly their sole purpose. > When countries close their ports we have an absolute conniption. You're still on this? When has this happened? Please give us even one example that's less than 150 years in the past. Forget the conniption part; can you even point to an example of a country "closing their ports" to all trade? The U.S. (along with every other powerful nation in history) has a long and storied history of military aggression in service of its own economic good, and American military policy has often been plainly captured by corporate interests. But the assertion you're making here, based on something that happened two centuries ago, is complete nonsense, and makes light of the ills that actually do afflict American foreign policy. When countries erect barriers to trade with the U.S., our government's reliable response is... wait for it! ...to erect reciprocal barriers in the form of quotas or tariffs, and then relentlessly work toward free trade agreements, preferably under the auspices of an international trade organization. Is that perhaps what you mean by having a conniption?

The purpose of the US Navy is to keep trade routes open. When countries close their ports we have an absolute conniption. The entire 20th century was a war between globalization and the self-sufficient dream of communism (I don't know why they couldn't find a happy compromise myself, but alas) -- a fight to keep "trade" flowing -- this often manifests in the west extracting resources from less powerful countries (not saying Soviet Russia never extracted resources from poorer countries) I don't have all the answers but USA is out for itself just the same as everyone else is.

ianai 8y ago
I think you’re conflating topics, concepts, and history. I was talking about international trade and macroeconomics - primarily the last 30-50 years. The Churchill quote seems relevant as well but still off topic: “democracy is the worst government except for all the other governments tried through time.” (Paraphrased.) Every international trade has an associated international currency exchange. China’s manipulated its global position through exchanging more of its currency for USD than the market clearing rate for decades. This had the affect of setting their entire economy on “fire sale” prices, also for decades. They only acknowledge the existence of Chinese IP rights owned by Chinese companies. Etc,etc,...There are books on these topics. During that timeframe the US government has worked unilaterally and internationally to combat the dotCom bust, the S&L crisis of the 80s, and the Great Recession, amongst other things. A good trade actor has many things, including a relatively stable currency and financial system. The US isn’t some paragon of perfection, but they have done some identifiably good international trade measures.
nate_meurer 8y ago
> The purpose of the US Navy is to keep trade routes open. That's an important function of every blue-water navy, but it's hardly their sole purpose. > When countries close their ports we have an absolute conniption. You're still on this? When has this happened? Please give us even one example that's less than 150 years in the past. Forget the conniption part; can you even point to an example of a country "closing their ports" to all trade? The U.S. (along with every other powerful nation in history) has a long and storied history of military aggression in service of its own economic good, and American military policy has often been plainly captured by corporate interests. But the assertion you're making here, based on something that happened two centuries ago, is complete nonsense, and makes light of the ills that actually do afflict American foreign policy. When countries erect barriers to trade with the U.S., our government's reliable response is... wait for it! ...to erect reciprocal barriers in the form of quotas or tariffs, and then relentlessly work toward free trade agreements, preferably under the auspices of an international trade organization. Is that perhaps what you mean by having a conniption?