4 ms·

The trade wars have already begun with the Inflation Reduction Act - the US is already turning protectionist and subsidising its own industry to the detriment o

The trade wars have already begun with the Inflation Reduction Act - the US is already turning protectionist and subsidising its own industry to the detriment of its allies' industry. I wouldn't put it past a future government to take more drastic action, whether or not the EU takes a hard stance on US tech. The US is still a vital ally of Europe and I'm optimistic that this relationship will continue. But Trump and the alignment of factions of the Republican Party with Russian interests have demonstrated that this relationship is no longer rock-solid. Even the Democrats are shakier than they used to be, and orienting for a more self-reliant US. The US is preparing itself for the end of the post-Cold War liberal global order. The European-American alliance may survive this shift or it may not. Drastic action against US tech is absolutely still premature, but we should be prepared for European interests to no longer necessarily be the same as American interests.

phpisthebest 3y ago
>>But Trump and the alignment of factions of the Republican Party with Russian interests hmmm >>> already begun with the Inflation Reduction Act - the US is already turning protectionist you do know that was a Democratic supported, passed and celebrated law right? Not republican. I have no love loss for the republicans, but this idea that all the problems with US politics are because of Republicans (or worse the Trump bogey man) is moronic and ignorant. >The European-American alliance may survive this shift or it may not. This shift has to take place with Europe advancing more of it national defense itself, America simply can not afford to be the world police anymore. The American People are demanding ever increasing social programs, EU Style Social programs, which the EU has been able to have due to the protection umbrella the US as provided at great cost since WWII, to date almost none of the NATO Nations have ever honored their miniscule treaty requirements of 3% GDP defense spending, when they should be closer to 10-15%, but most are at 1-2% (or less) @32 Trillion Dollars in debt, the US Bank is collapsing, and closed...
- DoughnutHole 3y ago
  > you do know that was a Democratic supported, passed and celebrated law right? Not republican. I addressed this - the Democrats are also orienting towards a more protectionist, isolated US. The European-American relationship is also deteriorating under the current administration. But it's not Democrats that are arguing for abandoning Ukraine and acquiescing to Russia, it's factions of the Republican Party. The reality of which party does what is frankly irrelevant though - the perception of people and governments of Europe is that the US is not as reliably staunch of an ally as they once were, and this kicked off under the Trump administration. Europeans believe that a Republican administration is less supportive of a strong alliance, and this perception of flakiness is driving a push for European self-reliance. > to date almost none of the NATO Nations have ever honored their miniscule treaty requirements of 3% GDP This is already happening. Several of the biggest freeloading countries have promised massive increases in spending in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, most notably Germany. They haven't met their targets yet, but an era of European self-reliance in defence is coming, in spite of current struggles with inflation and supply issues. Things are moving slowly, but European governments largely no longer believe they are safe without playing an active role in their defence. > when they should be closer to 10-15% That'd be an insane spending on defence - for reference the US spends 3.5% and Russia spends 4.1%. Ukraine spends 34% and they're currently locked in a desperate struggle for survival.
  - phpisthebest 3y ago
    >>the perception of people and governments of Europe is that the US is not as reliably staunch of an ally as they once were, It is not a perception, it is reality and people need to understand that. The US can not afford it any more. >>But it's not Democrats that are arguing for abandoning Ukraine and acquiescing to Russia, I dont know about "acquiescing to Russia" but some member of the republican party have long understood the fiscal reality, where the Democrats, (and other members of the Republican party) live in the fantasy land where money, and debt do not matter and the government can just spend spend spend, with no limit. >>most notably Germany I will believe it when they actually do it, they have been promising that for almost a decade now. They still have not promised 3%, only 2%, and they will IMO never get there. I hope Poland emerges in EU leadership taking it from Germany >> Russia spends 4.1%. Ukraine spends 34% Now lets talk about corruption... >That'd be an insane spending on defence Maybe, but the US has been spending between 3-6% for decades building up the military to what is today, while the EU has been spending sub1% for those same decades, just matching US Spending is not going to cut it IMO. Current US Military spending is at a all time low since WWII in % of GDP numbers, largely because the growth in the US Economy, in real numbers we still spend an INSANE amount of money.
- FpUser 3y ago
  >"but this idea that all the problems with US politics are because of Republicans" Maybe the problem is for people not realizing that they are dealing with 2 buttocks of the same butt. And it does not look like said butt is by the people / for the people. Instead of fighting between each other people could be better off doing something productive about it.
  - themitigating 3y ago
    "2 buttocks of the same butt." How is this possibly the case when there are vastly different laws and rhetoric from both sides? I get you are implying that both are there are too benefit the wealthy, which is true, but they also do other things that affect people. Abortion, gay rights, spending, taxation, gun laws. How are they the same??? Then you ask people to do something productive, what? Revolution? That will likely destroy the US economy and possibly the global economy for years. It will also lead to a large loss of life. There's also no guarantee what happens after will be positive. Look at France, post revolution they had a bunch of shitty governments/dictators and then the king came back. So what are you suggesting?
    - mrguyorama 3y ago
      The whole point of "both sides the same" rhetoric is to discourage people from doing anything political, that's why it never has any actionable suggestions. The only option to get something done in the US is to shack up with one of the political parties and hope you can get enough altruistic people elected to dismantle the broken two party system. "Both sides the same" wants to preempt you from thinking there is a "less bad" side to choose, so that you don't choose a side, so that nothing ever happens. Both sides are OBJECTIVELY not the same. You can easily look at voting history and see that, even if you don't believe anything you hear on the news. Think long and hard whenever someone tells you this fallacy.
      - themitigating 3y ago
        "The whole point of "both sides the same" rhetoric is to discourage people from doing anything political, that's why it never has any actionable suggestions. " I also believe this is the goal of many of the "both sides" people. Since not voting benefits Republicans[1] I believe those people have an ulterior motive to help them win https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/supreme-court-gop-attorney-defends-voting-restrictions-saying-they-help-n1259305 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/supreme-court-gop...

phpisthebest 3y ago

>>But Trump and the alignment of factions of the Republican Party with Russian interests hmmm >>> already begun with the Inflation Reduction Act - the US is already turning protectionist you do know that was a Democratic supported, passed and celebrated law right? Not republican. I have no love loss for the republicans, but this idea that all the problems with US politics are because of Republicans (or worse the Trump bogey man) is moronic and ignorant. >The European-American alliance may survive this shift or it may not. This shift has to take place with Europe advancing more of it national defense itself, America simply can not afford to be the world police anymore. The American People are demanding ever increasing social programs, EU Style Social programs, which the EU has been able to have due to the protection umbrella the US as provided at great cost since WWII, to date almost none of the NATO Nations have ever honored their miniscule treaty requirements of 3% GDP defense spending, when they should be closer to 10-15%, but most are at 1-2% (or less) @32 Trillion Dollars in debt, the US Bank is collapsing, and closed...

DoughnutHole 3y ago
> you do know that was a Democratic supported, passed and celebrated law right? Not republican. I addressed this - the Democrats are also orienting towards a more protectionist, isolated US. The European-American relationship is also deteriorating under the current administration. But it's not Democrats that are arguing for abandoning Ukraine and acquiescing to Russia, it's factions of the Republican Party. The reality of which party does what is frankly irrelevant though - the perception of people and governments of Europe is that the US is not as reliably staunch of an ally as they once were, and this kicked off under the Trump administration. Europeans believe that a Republican administration is less supportive of a strong alliance, and this perception of flakiness is driving a push for European self-reliance. > to date almost none of the NATO Nations have ever honored their miniscule treaty requirements of 3% GDP This is already happening. Several of the biggest freeloading countries have promised massive increases in spending in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, most notably Germany. They haven't met their targets yet, but an era of European self-reliance in defence is coming, in spite of current struggles with inflation and supply issues. Things are moving slowly, but European governments largely no longer believe they are safe without playing an active role in their defence. > when they should be closer to 10-15% That'd be an insane spending on defence - for reference the US spends 3.5% and Russia spends 4.1%. Ukraine spends 34% and they're currently locked in a desperate struggle for survival.
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  >>the perception of people and governments of Europe is that the US is not as reliably staunch of an ally as they once were, It is not a perception, it is reality and people need to understand that. The US can not afford it any more. >>But it's not Democrats that are arguing for abandoning Ukraine and acquiescing to Russia, I dont know about "acquiescing to Russia" but some member of the republican party have long understood the fiscal reality, where the Democrats, (and other members of the Republican party) live in the fantasy land where money, and debt do not matter and the government can just spend spend spend, with no limit. >>most notably Germany I will believe it when they actually do it, they have been promising that for almost a decade now. They still have not promised 3%, only 2%, and they will IMO never get there. I hope Poland emerges in EU leadership taking it from Germany >> Russia spends 4.1%. Ukraine spends 34% Now lets talk about corruption... >That'd be an insane spending on defence Maybe, but the US has been spending between 3-6% for decades building up the military to what is today, while the EU has been spending sub1% for those same decades, just matching US Spending is not going to cut it IMO. Current US Military spending is at a all time low since WWII in % of GDP numbers, largely because the growth in the US Economy, in real numbers we still spend an INSANE amount of money.
FpUser 3y ago
>"but this idea that all the problems with US politics are because of Republicans" Maybe the problem is for people not realizing that they are dealing with 2 buttocks of the same butt. And it does not look like said butt is by the people / for the people. Instead of fighting between each other people could be better off doing something productive about it.
- themitigating 3y ago
  "2 buttocks of the same butt." How is this possibly the case when there are vastly different laws and rhetoric from both sides? I get you are implying that both are there are too benefit the wealthy, which is true, but they also do other things that affect people. Abortion, gay rights, spending, taxation, gun laws. How are they the same??? Then you ask people to do something productive, what? Revolution? That will likely destroy the US economy and possibly the global economy for years. It will also lead to a large loss of life. There's also no guarantee what happens after will be positive. Look at France, post revolution they had a bunch of shitty governments/dictators and then the king came back. So what are you suggesting?
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    The whole point of "both sides the same" rhetoric is to discourage people from doing anything political, that's why it never has any actionable suggestions. The only option to get something done in the US is to shack up with one of the political parties and hope you can get enough altruistic people elected to dismantle the broken two party system. "Both sides the same" wants to preempt you from thinking there is a "less bad" side to choose, so that you don't choose a side, so that nothing ever happens. Both sides are OBJECTIVELY not the same. You can easily look at voting history and see that, even if you don't believe anything you hear on the news. Think long and hard whenever someone tells you this fallacy.
    - themitigating 3y ago
      "The whole point of "both sides the same" rhetoric is to discourage people from doing anything political, that's why it never has any actionable suggestions. " I also believe this is the goal of many of the "both sides" people. Since not voting benefits Republicans[1] I believe those people have an ulterior motive to help them win https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/supreme-court-gop-attorney-defends-voting-restrictions-saying-they-help-n1259305 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/supreme-court-gop...