5 ms·

They did slow it down ( including the form of couple banks going under and Summers begging for a bailout ). It just so happens that federal government also mana

They did slow it down ( including the form of couple banks going under and Summers begging for a bailout ). It just so happens that federal government also managed to pass some corporate stimulus in the form of 'green new deal' or whatever they ended up calling it and war of Ukraine, which helps domestic warmachine ( billions from misnamed foreign aid ). edit: Oh, and the Summeers did manage to scare enough people to rescue SVB so that impact was absorbed, amusingly, by other banks via extraordinary FDIC fee ( most banks have it listed now on their quarterly statement in case you are inclined to check ).

alephnerd 3y ago
Foreign Aid for Ukraine is overstated. It's just $5bil, which is a drop in the bucket for even state governments in the US. If that's the cost to fight a proxy war, it's fairly cheap. That's how much it costs to build a highway from Pittsburgh to Morgantown (Mon–Fayette Expressway). > managed to pass some corporate stimulus This is the key point, and a critical one at that. That corporate stimulus suddenly made swathes of American manufacturing, construction, etc cost effective again.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
  You know.. if I could only get a small fraction of that $5b instead of contributing to it being send to everyone but me, I would be a happier man. edit: I will make a less convoluted statement. Ideally, the amount of that small 5b donation abroad would be zero.
  - cl0ckt0wer 3y ago
    That's called universal basic income.
  - nradov 3y ago
    You probably wouldn't be happier in the long run if Russia succeeds in their goal of reconquering much of Eastern Europe. That will make the entire world poorer and more violent. A few billion dollars is a cheap price to contain Russian expansionism.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      What would have been really cheaper is if when Russia told NATO not to offer MAPs to Ukraine and Georgia in 2008, claiming that doing so would lead to regional instability while refraining would support peace, NATO had thanked them for their input and done the opposite, rather than complying. Over a decade of unchecked Russian aggression before the 2022 Russian escalation in Ukraine made constraining that aggression more expensive, but still less so than it would be with additional Western appeasement.
      - smallmancontrov 3y ago
        Yeah, well, the best time to stop appeasing might have been 20 years ago but the next best time is today.
      - alienicecream 3y ago
        Why would Ukraine and Georgia belong in NATO for any reason other than to piss off the Russians? Should we put Uganda and Congo in NATO? I hear Rwanda has territorial ambitions. Why don't we just stick to places we belong instead of trying to control every part of the world. Would you like to fight in Ukraine? Because I hear they take volunteers. Guaranteeing the security of volatile third rate countries you don't really care about is a sure fire way of avoiding war, as we saw in WW1.
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        > Why would Ukraine and Georgia belong in NATO for any reason other than to piss off the Russians? For mutual defense against outside aggressors and to coordinate regional security efforts, same as every other NATO member. The fact that the Russians were clearly in 2008 (and have demonstrated that even more clearly since) the most likely and dangerous outside aggressors facing Georgia and Ukraine doesn't mean the purpose is to piss off Russia, though, to be fair, pissing off someone who w is inclined to aggression against you because you've made that less easy is not a bad thing. > Should we put Uganda and Congo in NATO? Uganda and the DRC have expressed no interest, that I know of, in NATO membership or partnership, and are rather distant from the explicit geographic focus of NATO as specified in the treaty (Europe and North America) [0], as well as having political issues (like Russia when it tried to jump ahead of the readiness process and join) that would require, at best, a long onramp leaving geography aside. They'd probably be better candidates for NATO global partner status if they decidedto pursue a NATO affiliation than membership any time in the forseeable future. [0] Hence the language in Article 9 that, beyond the founding members which notably include some North American states, “The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty.”
  - smallmancontrov 3y ago
    Can you deliver a credible reduction in the amount of future money we will have to spend to contain Putin's territorial ambitions? No? In that case I think the $5b is best spent in Ukraine.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
      Hmm, not exactly. I can, however, absolutely guarantee that if we do keep the printing press open for geopolitical projects of various kinds, there will be too many dollars of no value in the future. It is a fate America might want to avoid. Because I assume you know full well that is is not actually 5b. The amount is much greater[1]. Now, we can talk about priorities, which is fair. If you were in charge, what aid is fair game for scrapping? Because US will not be able to support it forever. [1]https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine...
      - smallmancontrov 3y ago
        > not exactly So you're advocating for fiscal irresponsibility while complaining about it at the same time. How very typical. > too many dollars of no value in the future Oh no, not a currency devaluation! You know that not only do many countries intentionally seek to devalue their currency, but there are regular fights in the UN about it. "(Other country) promised to not devalue their currency but did it anyway and now I am upset" is probably one of the top 3 recurring mini-dramas. These generally launch into political grandstanding without covering the macroeconomic basics of why a country might want to devalue their currency because it is such a common occurrence that everyone present is expected to know, and they generally do know, as do I. The way that you bring it up as if it is an unspeakable horror makes me suspect you do not. You might want to fix that. It's possible that you actually do occupy the parts of the American economy that would be hurt by a currency devaluation, in which case fine, everyone is entitled to their own self-serving opinions, just don't expect me to share them. However, I don't think that's the case -- those parts of the economy generally understand the macro 101 at play. It's a pet peeve of mine when someone who works in an economic sector that would benefit from a currency devaluation recoils from the prospect in horror because all they understand is what they heard on TV and the general principle of "line go down, bad." In any case, my point is: don't threaten me with a good time. There are negative consequences for fiscal irresponsibility, but that's not the one that keeps me up at night.
- bequanna 3y ago
  Umm, you’re off by an order of magnitude. We could run several states for a year with what we’ve sent them. $75 billion: https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine...
  - alephnerd 3y ago
    The current argument against US Aid to Ukraine is over the current foreign aid package of $5B, which has turned into a culture war issue. I never heard similar arguments in 2016, 2019, or 2021.
    - bequanna 3y ago
      The total amount that we’ve already gifted Ukraine is absolutely relevant when we discuss sending even more. Since we are running historic Federal deficits, every dollar we agree to send them comes at the expense of decreasing the purchasing power of Americans. Government spending at these levels contributes to inflation and makes Americans worse off. Enough is enough.
      - Temporary_31337 3y ago
        If the war escalates to Europe US companies will have nowhere to send their iPhones and Teslas to.
      - jajko 3y ago
        If US loses half a billion in European countries that are by far the most aligned with US view on how to run world and who should do it, suddenly it will be just US, Australia, New Zealand and... maybe few small states against russia and China. Nobody else, some 6?% of global population. Also its extremely rich continent when compared to the rest. Ie most of Africa already currently is anti-US (and anti-european) if you didnt notice and welcoming China and russia like long lost brothers, and its progressing. If US will give us big FU, we will manage russian expansionism on our own, with heavy losses, eventually, despite mostly pathetic leadership (ie germans really know how to put clueless folks sabotaging their own countries into leadership). But we wont ever be friends like we are now. Magas or similar fringe folks need to put together way more coherent arguments than these, since they dont make any sense from any rational point of view, even if completely US-centric and selfish.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

alephnerd 3y ago

Foreign Aid for Ukraine is overstated. It's just $5bil, which is a drop in the bucket for even state governments in the US. If that's the cost to fight a proxy war, it's fairly cheap. That's how much it costs to build a highway from Pittsburgh to Morgantown (Mon–Fayette Expressway). > managed to pass some corporate stimulus This is the key point, and a critical one at that. That corporate stimulus suddenly made swathes of American manufacturing, construction, etc cost effective again.

A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
You know.. if I could only get a small fraction of that $5b instead of contributing to it being send to everyone but me, I would be a happier man. edit: I will make a less convoluted statement. Ideally, the amount of that small 5b donation abroad would be zero.
- cl0ckt0wer 3y ago
  That's called universal basic income.
- nradov 3y ago
  You probably wouldn't be happier in the long run if Russia succeeds in their goal of reconquering much of Eastern Europe. That will make the entire world poorer and more violent. A few billion dollars is a cheap price to contain Russian expansionism.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    What would have been really cheaper is if when Russia told NATO not to offer MAPs to Ukraine and Georgia in 2008, claiming that doing so would lead to regional instability while refraining would support peace, NATO had thanked them for their input and done the opposite, rather than complying. Over a decade of unchecked Russian aggression before the 2022 Russian escalation in Ukraine made constraining that aggression more expensive, but still less so than it would be with additional Western appeasement.
    - smallmancontrov 3y ago
      Yeah, well, the best time to stop appeasing might have been 20 years ago but the next best time is today.
    - alienicecream 3y ago
      Why would Ukraine and Georgia belong in NATO for any reason other than to piss off the Russians? Should we put Uganda and Congo in NATO? I hear Rwanda has territorial ambitions. Why don't we just stick to places we belong instead of trying to control every part of the world. Would you like to fight in Ukraine? Because I hear they take volunteers. Guaranteeing the security of volatile third rate countries you don't really care about is a sure fire way of avoiding war, as we saw in WW1.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > Why would Ukraine and Georgia belong in NATO for any reason other than to piss off the Russians? For mutual defense against outside aggressors and to coordinate regional security efforts, same as every other NATO member. The fact that the Russians were clearly in 2008 (and have demonstrated that even more clearly since) the most likely and dangerous outside aggressors facing Georgia and Ukraine doesn't mean the purpose is to piss off Russia, though, to be fair, pissing off someone who w is inclined to aggression against you because you've made that less easy is not a bad thing. > Should we put Uganda and Congo in NATO? Uganda and the DRC have expressed no interest, that I know of, in NATO membership or partnership, and are rather distant from the explicit geographic focus of NATO as specified in the treaty (Europe and North America) [0], as well as having political issues (like Russia when it tried to jump ahead of the readiness process and join) that would require, at best, a long onramp leaving geography aside. They'd probably be better candidates for NATO global partner status if they decidedto pursue a NATO affiliation than membership any time in the forseeable future. [0] Hence the language in Article 9 that, beyond the founding members which notably include some North American states, “The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty.”
- smallmancontrov 3y ago
  Can you deliver a credible reduction in the amount of future money we will have to spend to contain Putin's territorial ambitions? No? In that case I think the $5b is best spent in Ukraine.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
    Hmm, not exactly. I can, however, absolutely guarantee that if we do keep the printing press open for geopolitical projects of various kinds, there will be too many dollars of no value in the future. It is a fate America might want to avoid. Because I assume you know full well that is is not actually 5b. The amount is much greater[1]. Now, we can talk about priorities, which is fair. If you were in charge, what aid is fair game for scrapping? Because US will not be able to support it forever. [1]https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine...
    - smallmancontrov 3y ago
      > not exactly So you're advocating for fiscal irresponsibility while complaining about it at the same time. How very typical. > too many dollars of no value in the future Oh no, not a currency devaluation! You know that not only do many countries intentionally seek to devalue their currency, but there are regular fights in the UN about it. "(Other country) promised to not devalue their currency but did it anyway and now I am upset" is probably one of the top 3 recurring mini-dramas. These generally launch into political grandstanding without covering the macroeconomic basics of why a country might want to devalue their currency because it is such a common occurrence that everyone present is expected to know, and they generally do know, as do I. The way that you bring it up as if it is an unspeakable horror makes me suspect you do not. You might want to fix that. It's possible that you actually do occupy the parts of the American economy that would be hurt by a currency devaluation, in which case fine, everyone is entitled to their own self-serving opinions, just don't expect me to share them. However, I don't think that's the case -- those parts of the economy generally understand the macro 101 at play. It's a pet peeve of mine when someone who works in an economic sector that would benefit from a currency devaluation recoils from the prospect in horror because all they understand is what they heard on TV and the general principle of "line go down, bad." In any case, my point is: don't threaten me with a good time. There are negative consequences for fiscal irresponsibility, but that's not the one that keeps me up at night.
bequanna 3y ago
Umm, you’re off by an order of magnitude. We could run several states for a year with what we’ve sent them. $75 billion: https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine...
- alephnerd 3y ago
  The current argument against US Aid to Ukraine is over the current foreign aid package of $5B, which has turned into a culture war issue. I never heard similar arguments in 2016, 2019, or 2021.
  - bequanna 3y ago
    The total amount that we’ve already gifted Ukraine is absolutely relevant when we discuss sending even more. Since we are running historic Federal deficits, every dollar we agree to send them comes at the expense of decreasing the purchasing power of Americans. Government spending at these levels contributes to inflation and makes Americans worse off. Enough is enough.
    - Temporary_31337 3y ago
      If the war escalates to Europe US companies will have nowhere to send their iPhones and Teslas to.
    - jajko 3y ago
      If US loses half a billion in European countries that are by far the most aligned with US view on how to run world and who should do it, suddenly it will be just US, Australia, New Zealand and... maybe few small states against russia and China. Nobody else, some 6?% of global population. Also its extremely rich continent when compared to the rest. Ie most of Africa already currently is anti-US (and anti-european) if you didnt notice and welcoming China and russia like long lost brothers, and its progressing. If US will give us big FU, we will manage russian expansionism on our own, with heavy losses, eventually, despite mostly pathetic leadership (ie germans really know how to put clueless folks sabotaging their own countries into leadership). But we wont ever be friends like we are now. Magas or similar fringe folks need to put together way more coherent arguments than these, since they dont make any sense from any rational point of view, even if completely US-centric and selfish.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]