4 ms·

> It is not a country which should have any influence whatsoever outside its borders I wholly agree, as an American citizen

pavlov 2y ago
Be careful what you ask for. The United Kingdom went from a country with enormously outsized global influence to just another European nation. The downward spiral has been stark. The economy stagnates, more and more people live in poverty, and voters decided to inflict further self-harm by cutting themselves off from economic treaties with neighbors based on an illusion of self-importance. If America ends up in the same place, its collapse will be harder and more dangerous.
- silver_silver 2y ago
  Utter nonsense. The UK has lost its outsized influence but the economic problems are at worst the same as in America. Property is less expensive even, and nobody’s at risk of being bankrupted by a medical emergency. The armies of homeless in American cities don’t exist across the Atlantic.
  - pavlov 2y ago
    I lived in London for a few years and saw the armies of homeless every day, no different from New York City. In my experience, UK is a country that has managed to combine the worst of America with the worst of Europe with very few redeeming benefits except for the richest 0.1%, who are indeed very well taken care of in England.
    - silver_silver 2y ago
      In the case of primary homelessness (UN definition), America is about 12x worse than the UK - see swores reply below. I am from neither continent and as an outsider America’s current problems seem to far outweigh any decline the European powers have experienced.
  - gnfargbl 2y ago
    I'm not sure it's apples to apples on property; the average US house might be slightly more expensive, but it's also three times the size!
  - chinchilla2020 2y ago
    > The armies of homeless in American cities don’t exist across the Atlantic. Are you assuming nobody here has lived or visited the EU or UK? There are tons of homeless in London, Berlin, and Paris. It is equivalent to the worst American cities. London is definitely a better city for the super rich though. It is essentially a butler economy - most residents are involved in the industries that cater to super rich foreigners.
    - gnfargbl 2y ago
      London is equivalent to SF in terms of homelessness? Pull the other one.
      - chinchilla2020 2y ago
        Ok not SF. SF is a major outlier. That city is truly a homeless apocalypse
    - swores 2y ago
      Every time I've seen statistics comparing, they disagree with your anecdote. Spending two minutes to look on Wikipedia shows that, for example, comparing UK to USA: the UK is technically worse in "homeless per capita" (where homeless includes people forced to sleep in the houses of friends or family) - at 56.1 per 100k for UK, and 19.5 per 100k for USA. However when it comes to "unsheltered", i.e. what people generally think of "homeless" as meaning, and what's visible on streets, the US is far worse at 12 per 100k compared to UK's 0.9 per 100k. (France at 4.5 per 100k, Germany doesn't have a comparable number listed and I'm too lazy to look for one.) I have lived in two of the European cities you mentioned, visited many others as well as a number of major US cities, and I agree that in all of them it is possible to see extremely depressing scenes with far too many people forces to live on the streets. But it's ridiculous to think you could compare any two city's homeless/unsheltered problems based on visiting or even living in those cities without actually studying the situation / looking at statistics. Perhaps you read parent comment as implying there are literally zero homeless people in Europe, which obviously isn't true, and technically US and European unsheltered numbers are indeed "comparable" as I've just proven by comparing them - but I feel if the difference is the US having 12x as many people in that position it's misleading, to the point of being effectively wrong, to call that a comparable situation.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 2y ago
  Ah. You point at a pile of shit that’s long been festering but the selfish bastards that left it have long since departed. Some people are still around adding to it here and there (brexit, etc) but the malaise and disconnectedness of the proletariat are what protects these problems from being solved because they still benefit a small group of powerful people who would very much rather their wealth, lazy existences and the like be undisturbed. A key hurdle for the proletariat is to find a way to unite across cultural boundaries - a very difficult problem in any country.
- sbarre 2y ago
  > The United Kingdom went from a country with enormously outsized global influence to just another European nation. You should read the book Treasure Islands by Nick Shaxson. The UK may not be the global military/political power it once was (and that's probably a good thing), but it is still very much in the middle of the global economy (and not in a good way). This isn't to refute any of your points, but it was an eye-opening read.
- UncleOxidant 2y ago
  > If America ends up in the same place, its collapse will be harder and more dangerous. Seems to be not only inevitable, but currently in progress.
- guappa 2y ago
  > The economy stagnates, more and more people live in poverty If the only way to sustain that was to starve people in india… perhaps it is good to learn how to survive on one's own means instead?
supersanity 2y ago
A lot of people say something like this but are also fine with sending weapons and money to Ukraine, pushing for the legalization of gay marriage abroad, etc. Usually what these people really mean is "I'm against US influence outside our borders unless it's something that I agree with."
- level1ten 2y ago
  You would have a hard time convincing Israelis of this too. As if you should be left to fend for yourself when surrounded by enemies.
impossiblefork 2y ago
I don't like that you agree, and I feel I should moderate my position somehow, when I see this agreement. I don't want to infinitely limit US influence, and want something more like no one country being able to dictate anything to others, an increased capacity for all countries to be free from both overt and covert influence of all sorts, etc., perhaps with the exception of some particularly horrible countries.

pavlov 2y ago

Be careful what you ask for. The United Kingdom went from a country with enormously outsized global influence to just another European nation. The downward spiral has been stark. The economy stagnates, more and more people live in poverty, and voters decided to inflict further self-harm by cutting themselves off from economic treaties with neighbors based on an illusion of self-importance. If America ends up in the same place, its collapse will be harder and more dangerous.

silver_silver 2y ago
Utter nonsense. The UK has lost its outsized influence but the economic problems are at worst the same as in America. Property is less expensive even, and nobody’s at risk of being bankrupted by a medical emergency. The armies of homeless in American cities don’t exist across the Atlantic.
- pavlov 2y ago
  I lived in London for a few years and saw the armies of homeless every day, no different from New York City. In my experience, UK is a country that has managed to combine the worst of America with the worst of Europe with very few redeeming benefits except for the richest 0.1%, who are indeed very well taken care of in England.
  - silver_silver 2y ago
    In the case of primary homelessness (UN definition), America is about 12x worse than the UK - see swores reply below. I am from neither continent and as an outsider America’s current problems seem to far outweigh any decline the European powers have experienced.
- gnfargbl 2y ago
  I'm not sure it's apples to apples on property; the average US house might be slightly more expensive, but it's also three times the size!
- chinchilla2020 2y ago
  > The armies of homeless in American cities don’t exist across the Atlantic. Are you assuming nobody here has lived or visited the EU or UK? There are tons of homeless in London, Berlin, and Paris. It is equivalent to the worst American cities. London is definitely a better city for the super rich though. It is essentially a butler economy - most residents are involved in the industries that cater to super rich foreigners.
  - gnfargbl 2y ago
    London is equivalent to SF in terms of homelessness? Pull the other one.
    - chinchilla2020 2y ago
      Ok not SF. SF is a major outlier. That city is truly a homeless apocalypse
  - swores 2y ago
    Every time I've seen statistics comparing, they disagree with your anecdote. Spending two minutes to look on Wikipedia shows that, for example, comparing UK to USA: the UK is technically worse in "homeless per capita" (where homeless includes people forced to sleep in the houses of friends or family) - at 56.1 per 100k for UK, and 19.5 per 100k for USA. However when it comes to "unsheltered", i.e. what people generally think of "homeless" as meaning, and what's visible on streets, the US is far worse at 12 per 100k compared to UK's 0.9 per 100k. (France at 4.5 per 100k, Germany doesn't have a comparable number listed and I'm too lazy to look for one.) I have lived in two of the European cities you mentioned, visited many others as well as a number of major US cities, and I agree that in all of them it is possible to see extremely depressing scenes with far too many people forces to live on the streets. But it's ridiculous to think you could compare any two city's homeless/unsheltered problems based on visiting or even living in those cities without actually studying the situation / looking at statistics. Perhaps you read parent comment as implying there are literally zero homeless people in Europe, which obviously isn't true, and technically US and European unsheltered numbers are indeed "comparable" as I've just proven by comparing them - but I feel if the difference is the US having 12x as many people in that position it's misleading, to the point of being effectively wrong, to call that a comparable situation.
Red_Leaves_Flyy 2y ago
Ah. You point at a pile of shit that’s long been festering but the selfish bastards that left it have long since departed. Some people are still around adding to it here and there (brexit, etc) but the malaise and disconnectedness of the proletariat are what protects these problems from being solved because they still benefit a small group of powerful people who would very much rather their wealth, lazy existences and the like be undisturbed. A key hurdle for the proletariat is to find a way to unite across cultural boundaries - a very difficult problem in any country.
sbarre 2y ago
> The United Kingdom went from a country with enormously outsized global influence to just another European nation. You should read the book Treasure Islands by Nick Shaxson. The UK may not be the global military/political power it once was (and that's probably a good thing), but it is still very much in the middle of the global economy (and not in a good way). This isn't to refute any of your points, but it was an eye-opening read.
UncleOxidant 2y ago
> If America ends up in the same place, its collapse will be harder and more dangerous. Seems to be not only inevitable, but currently in progress.
guappa 2y ago
> The economy stagnates, more and more people live in poverty If the only way to sustain that was to starve people in india… perhaps it is good to learn how to survive on one's own means instead?

supersanity 2y ago

A lot of people say something like this but are also fine with sending weapons and money to Ukraine, pushing for the legalization of gay marriage abroad, etc. Usually what these people really mean is "I'm against US influence outside our borders unless it's something that I agree with."

level1ten 2y ago
You would have a hard time convincing Israelis of this too. As if you should be left to fend for yourself when surrounded by enemies.

impossiblefork 2y ago

I don't like that you agree, and I feel I should moderate my position somehow, when I see this agreement. I don't want to infinitely limit US influence, and want something more like no one country being able to dictate anything to others, an increased capacity for all countries to be free from both overt and covert influence of all sorts, etc., perhaps with the exception of some particularly horrible countries.