3 ms·

> It was never a free lunch, this transactional mindset is ignorant, the USA benefitted tremendously from NATO both financially as through immense soft and hard

> It was never a free lunch, this transactional mindset is ignorant, the USA benefitted tremendously from NATO both financially as through immense soft and hard power stemming from it. Repeating this platitude shows you don't understand that. This world police narrative is nauseating. I don't doubt NATO has economic benefits, but this is a partnership that needs to be re-examined if our partners aren't honoring agreements, don't have skin in the game, or aren't aligning with American interests/values. This is true for Europe, this is true for our allies in the middle east, and this this true for our partners in Asia.

piva00 2y ago
Why is it nauseating? The USA made its own prerogative to keep trade flowing, it was the USA who decided it was in the USA's benefit to invest in enforcing it, exactly because it helps itself! The benefit to others is secondary, as most things in geopolitics it stems from an egotistical motivation: it helps the USA. > I don't doubt NATO has economic benefits, but this is a partnership that needs to be re-examined if our partners aren't honoring agreements, don't have skin in the game, or aren't aligning with American interests/values Please, explain how the partnership wasn't beneficial to the USA even if the 2% spending wasn't reached by the partners, you are going in circles here without further developing what exactly is the damage caused by it. All partners have skin in the game, for fucks sake, the only time any country invoked Article 5 was the USA after 9/11, is that forgotten? > This is true for Europe, this is true for our allies in the middle east, and this this true for our partners in Asia. What else do you think the USA needs from all these partners? USA's hegemony only exists due to these partners, again you keep being absolutely non-descriptive on what that entails, you just want "more"? More of what? More military spending? For what reason specifically? Because if you are being egotistical the more other countries do not depend on the USA's military the less power the USA has over them. If Europe stops purchasing USA's military hardware and go completely domestic there's nothing to be gained for you. I absolutely support that, I think Europe shouldn't depend on the USA and stop purchasing military hardware from there, increase spending but on domestic platforms instead of feeding the USA's MIL. You don't seem to understand where America's power stems from... Edit: by the way, just stumbled upon this article[0] right after submitting this comment, who do you think benefits from this stupidity in the medium to long term? It's definitely not the USA or Western Europe. [0] https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-jr-volodymyr-zelenskyy-donald-trump-cut-funding-ukraine-war/ https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-jr-volodymyr-ze...
- asdasdsddd 2y ago
  Just to lay out the ground work, the 2 major interests for foreign policy is military strength and economic interests, and they are obviously related. On economic interests, trade only benefits the US if our trade partners have a huge comparative advantage over us. Studies have shown that our nation is so rich with resources and talent that this effect is minor, to the tune of 2-4% of gdp. So what do we suffer a massive trade deficit for? Largely cheap labor, a bit of technology, and a growing manufacturing expertise from China. In my view, the cheap labor has hollowed out middle America, the fact is that people over a certain age just can't be retrained. So the moral argument is whether we should pay more for goods, or if labor in our nation should be compensated more. I vote higher labor compensation because I think that disparities lead to worse social tension. On the technological front, there's much less wiggle room. We should be trying to patriate the technology just like how we stole the steam loom 200 years ago. If its not possible, we must extend security guarantees to our critical partners, and here we probably have less leverage. We need to secure Taiwan and anything west of Poland. On the military power front this is where we are probably going to have disagreements. Our allies need to be able to fight conventional wars. Its disgusting that Germany, the richest power in europe, consistently misses on military spending and buys russian gas. Germany and France should securing Europe from Russian aggression, a century ago, they would've trounced Russia. Ukraine should be fought with German and French equipment and German and French advisors. Our allies in Europe are not stepping up when they need to. Our allies in the Middle east are creating an entire generation of islamists who will hate us and do anything to take us down. I want them to simmer the fuck down and find diplomatic solutions. For our military alliance to be beneficial, our partners need to strong and be aligned with American interests and that is not happening.
  - piva00 2y ago
    > On economic interests, trade only benefits the US if our trade partners have a huge comparative advantage over us. Studies have shown that our nation is so rich with resources and talent that this effect is minor, to the tune of 2-4% of gdp. So what do we suffer a massive trade deficit for? Largely cheap labor, a bit of technology, and a growing manufacturing expertise from China. Trade deficit comes from the US being an immensely wealthy country, people in your country want to purchase things but won't pay the prices if those things were all made in the USA, labour is expensive and so the US exploits cheaper labour offshore to produce the stuff it wants to consume. > In my view, the cheap labor has hollowed out middle America, the fact is that people over a certain age just can't be retrained. So the moral argument is whether we should pay more for goods, or if labor in our nation should be compensated more. I vote higher labor compensation because I think that disparities lead to worse social tension. I agree, the moral argument is that you should pay more for goods and have better income distribution but America was never that, for a brief period of time after the Second World War the USA was able to manufacture most of what the world wanted because European factories were razed to the ground. That brought a lot of wealth into the middle class, there's no way to go back to that model. America's view on labour is diametrically opposed to supporting a healthy middle class, people being hostages of jobs to have basic medical needs fulfilled, at-will employment, punishing systems of social welfare, all of that breaks negotiation power from labour to achieve higher salaries in non high-skilled jobs. It's a fantasy that becoming more isolationist will solve any of these foundational issues America has against labour. Social tension will continue to rise while a class of people see themselves squeezed to support richer folks. Trickle-down economics doesn't work and the longer America depends on finance and huge corporations to drive its economy the larger this social divide will be. America has fostered an environment of corporate consolidation which takes power away from labour, this is completely unrelated to any foreign policy, it's a self-inflicted pain where economic growth was achieved by empowering corporations instead of workers. > On the technological front, there's much less wiggle room. We should be trying to patriate the technology just like how we stole the steam loom 200 years ago. If its not possible, we must extend security guarantees to our critical partners, and here we probably have less leverage. We need to secure Taiwan and anything west of Poland. There's no appetite in American corporations to risk their bottomline to advance technology, contemporary American corporations feed on acquisitions and accountancy tricks instead of the heydays of GE, Bell, Boeing, etc. investing in R&D to truly be a world lead in their industries. Same for EUV chips manufacturing, American corporations showed no great appetite to develop this technology domestically even though the American government invested heavily into it in the 1990s (see EUV LLC). The thing about extending security guarantees is that, again, America is losing its soft power. It's becoming untrustworthy, its institutions are cracking, there's a breaking point where a guarantee from the USA will mean less than a guarantee from another power and alliances will shift. The longer the USA stays on this course the faster this will happen, even more in case these alliances are tested and the USA falls through on their guarantees, Ukraine is becoming a poster child of that. > On the military power front this is where we are probably going to have disagreements. Our allies need to be able to fight conventional wars. Its disgusting that Germany, the richest power in europe, consistently misses on military spending and buys russian gas. Germany and France should securing Europe from Russian aggression, a century ago, they would've trounced Russia. Ukraine should be fought with German and French equipment and German and French advisors. Our allies in Europe are not stepping up when they need to. Our allies in the Middle east are creating an entire generation of islamists who will hate us and do anything to take us down. I want them to simmer the fuck down and find diplomatic solutions. For our military alliance to be beneficial, our partners need to strong and be aligned with American interests and that is not happening. Again, what's the benefit to the USA if other blocs are less dependent on America's power? Germany misses military spending because the Allies after the Second World War instilled an immense sense of guilt and shame (well deservedly) unto Germany, Germans became skeptical of militarism, newer generations were brought up in a culture to reject it. Now you are asking them to do a 180 turn on it, it will take decades to undo the sentiment even though it already started after the Russian invasion. France's military complex has been undermined exactly by the USA's MIL, France has always pursued selling more of their military hardware to Europe (even though for their own benefit) and was shoved aside many times by USA's supporters in NATO. A prime example even outside NATO: the USA botched the sale of France's submarines to Australia in favour of AUKUS. You can't have your cake and eat it too, the USA fostered an environment where European powers were to be dependent on the USA's military complex and now you are telling them they should have been better? That's absurd.

piva00 2y ago

Why is it nauseating? The USA made its own prerogative to keep trade flowing, it was the USA who decided it was in the USA's benefit to invest in enforcing it, exactly because it helps itself! The benefit to others is secondary, as most things in geopolitics it stems from an egotistical motivation: it helps the USA. > I don't doubt NATO has economic benefits, but this is a partnership that needs to be re-examined if our partners aren't honoring agreements, don't have skin in the game, or aren't aligning with American interests/values Please, explain how the partnership wasn't beneficial to the USA even if the 2% spending wasn't reached by the partners, you are going in circles here without further developing what exactly is the damage caused by it. All partners have skin in the game, for fucks sake, the only time any country invoked Article 5 was the USA after 9/11, is that forgotten? > This is true for Europe, this is true for our allies in the middle east, and this this true for our partners in Asia. What else do you think the USA needs from all these partners? USA's hegemony only exists due to these partners, again you keep being absolutely non-descriptive on what that entails, you just want "more"? More of what? More military spending? For what reason specifically? Because if you are being egotistical the more other countries do not depend on the USA's military the less power the USA has over them. If Europe stops purchasing USA's military hardware and go completely domestic there's nothing to be gained for you. I absolutely support that, I think Europe shouldn't depend on the USA and stop purchasing military hardware from there, increase spending but on domestic platforms instead of feeding the USA's MIL. You don't seem to understand where America's power stems from... Edit: by the way, just stumbled upon this article[0] right after submitting this comment, who do you think benefits from this stupidity in the medium to long term? It's definitely not the USA or Western Europe. [0] https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-jr-volodymyr-zelenskyy-donald-trump-cut-funding-ukraine-war/ https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-jr-volodymyr-ze...

asdasdsddd 2y ago
Just to lay out the ground work, the 2 major interests for foreign policy is military strength and economic interests, and they are obviously related. On economic interests, trade only benefits the US if our trade partners have a huge comparative advantage over us. Studies have shown that our nation is so rich with resources and talent that this effect is minor, to the tune of 2-4% of gdp. So what do we suffer a massive trade deficit for? Largely cheap labor, a bit of technology, and a growing manufacturing expertise from China. In my view, the cheap labor has hollowed out middle America, the fact is that people over a certain age just can't be retrained. So the moral argument is whether we should pay more for goods, or if labor in our nation should be compensated more. I vote higher labor compensation because I think that disparities lead to worse social tension. On the technological front, there's much less wiggle room. We should be trying to patriate the technology just like how we stole the steam loom 200 years ago. If its not possible, we must extend security guarantees to our critical partners, and here we probably have less leverage. We need to secure Taiwan and anything west of Poland. On the military power front this is where we are probably going to have disagreements. Our allies need to be able to fight conventional wars. Its disgusting that Germany, the richest power in europe, consistently misses on military spending and buys russian gas. Germany and France should securing Europe from Russian aggression, a century ago, they would've trounced Russia. Ukraine should be fought with German and French equipment and German and French advisors. Our allies in Europe are not stepping up when they need to. Our allies in the Middle east are creating an entire generation of islamists who will hate us and do anything to take us down. I want them to simmer the fuck down and find diplomatic solutions. For our military alliance to be beneficial, our partners need to strong and be aligned with American interests and that is not happening.
- piva00 2y ago
  > On economic interests, trade only benefits the US if our trade partners have a huge comparative advantage over us. Studies have shown that our nation is so rich with resources and talent that this effect is minor, to the tune of 2-4% of gdp. So what do we suffer a massive trade deficit for? Largely cheap labor, a bit of technology, and a growing manufacturing expertise from China. Trade deficit comes from the US being an immensely wealthy country, people in your country want to purchase things but won't pay the prices if those things were all made in the USA, labour is expensive and so the US exploits cheaper labour offshore to produce the stuff it wants to consume. > In my view, the cheap labor has hollowed out middle America, the fact is that people over a certain age just can't be retrained. So the moral argument is whether we should pay more for goods, or if labor in our nation should be compensated more. I vote higher labor compensation because I think that disparities lead to worse social tension. I agree, the moral argument is that you should pay more for goods and have better income distribution but America was never that, for a brief period of time after the Second World War the USA was able to manufacture most of what the world wanted because European factories were razed to the ground. That brought a lot of wealth into the middle class, there's no way to go back to that model. America's view on labour is diametrically opposed to supporting a healthy middle class, people being hostages of jobs to have basic medical needs fulfilled, at-will employment, punishing systems of social welfare, all of that breaks negotiation power from labour to achieve higher salaries in non high-skilled jobs. It's a fantasy that becoming more isolationist will solve any of these foundational issues America has against labour. Social tension will continue to rise while a class of people see themselves squeezed to support richer folks. Trickle-down economics doesn't work and the longer America depends on finance and huge corporations to drive its economy the larger this social divide will be. America has fostered an environment of corporate consolidation which takes power away from labour, this is completely unrelated to any foreign policy, it's a self-inflicted pain where economic growth was achieved by empowering corporations instead of workers. > On the technological front, there's much less wiggle room. We should be trying to patriate the technology just like how we stole the steam loom 200 years ago. If its not possible, we must extend security guarantees to our critical partners, and here we probably have less leverage. We need to secure Taiwan and anything west of Poland. There's no appetite in American corporations to risk their bottomline to advance technology, contemporary American corporations feed on acquisitions and accountancy tricks instead of the heydays of GE, Bell, Boeing, etc. investing in R&D to truly be a world lead in their industries. Same for EUV chips manufacturing, American corporations showed no great appetite to develop this technology domestically even though the American government invested heavily into it in the 1990s (see EUV LLC). The thing about extending security guarantees is that, again, America is losing its soft power. It's becoming untrustworthy, its institutions are cracking, there's a breaking point where a guarantee from the USA will mean less than a guarantee from another power and alliances will shift. The longer the USA stays on this course the faster this will happen, even more in case these alliances are tested and the USA falls through on their guarantees, Ukraine is becoming a poster child of that. > On the military power front this is where we are probably going to have disagreements. Our allies need to be able to fight conventional wars. Its disgusting that Germany, the richest power in europe, consistently misses on military spending and buys russian gas. Germany and France should securing Europe from Russian aggression, a century ago, they would've trounced Russia. Ukraine should be fought with German and French equipment and German and French advisors. Our allies in Europe are not stepping up when they need to. Our allies in the Middle east are creating an entire generation of islamists who will hate us and do anything to take us down. I want them to simmer the fuck down and find diplomatic solutions. For our military alliance to be beneficial, our partners need to strong and be aligned with American interests and that is not happening. Again, what's the benefit to the USA if other blocs are less dependent on America's power? Germany misses military spending because the Allies after the Second World War instilled an immense sense of guilt and shame (well deservedly) unto Germany, Germans became skeptical of militarism, newer generations were brought up in a culture to reject it. Now you are asking them to do a 180 turn on it, it will take decades to undo the sentiment even though it already started after the Russian invasion. France's military complex has been undermined exactly by the USA's MIL, France has always pursued selling more of their military hardware to Europe (even though for their own benefit) and was shoved aside many times by USA's supporters in NATO. A prime example even outside NATO: the USA botched the sale of France's submarines to Australia in favour of AUKUS. You can't have your cake and eat it too, the USA fostered an environment where European powers were to be dependent on the USA's military complex and now you are telling them they should have been better? That's absurd.