3 ms·

That is just fine with me. I realize our current national politics leave a lot to be desired. That sucks. But, as long as we are advancing and stuff bleeds o

That is just fine with me. I realize our current national politics leave a lot to be desired. That sucks. But, as long as we are advancing and stuff bleeds out to where mere mortals can access them, game on! I am not here to wish it were better. And I do want that, hope for that and am, when life permits, an activist to those ends. We all get a free ticket to this place. It is amazing! And we only get one. I plan on loving, living, building, doing, playing and all manner of things we find ourselves willing and able to do That is why I am here. And ideally, I leave it better than I found it. Well on track for that to be true right now which means I am here to take the risks I can manage. It is by no means perfect, but it is somewhat defensible POV.

MichaelZuo 2y ago
Well it’s great… except for all the credibility the US lost abroad after claiming for several decades to not be doing many of those things under cover. Trading away what took over 200 years to build up, and will need another 200 years to regain to the same extent, isn’t smart.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- toolz 2y ago
  Do you have an objective metric that suggests the US has lost (or is losing) credibility? I don't see any signs of it.
  - MichaelZuo 2y ago
    UN voting patterns. e.g. In the 1990s General Assembly it was far from certain that the US would lose most of the contenious ones involving the US, every year, except maybe the annual Cuba vote. Whereas in 2023-2024, well you can check yourself. A lot of the time even countries like Norway or Ireland or Mexico vote against the US.
    - toolz 2y ago
      Do you have a link to anything that shows the data analysis on our voting patterns having less international backing in recent times? I see the data and can plot out a trend myself, but if someone has already done better analysis I'm curious to read more about what you're talking about. edit: I did a simple chart over all the UN votes sorted by date and the amount of votes that match USA votes seems to increase over time, but the real issue is that the vote data only went through 2021. At a quick glance the only data I can find does not match what you're suggesting.
      - MichaelZuo 2y ago
        Huh? I clearly see the General Assembly voting results on their website starting way before 2021?
  - ddingus 2y ago
    We will see signs over the next Presidential term. And frankly, some from the current one. And we have a couple generations, maybe a few --probably a few, some of age and ready to take the reigns of governance, who feel the US has things to answer for. Whether they will act is another discussion. A diminished US credence is a logical consequence of our policy choices. A big one was actually 9/11. We were a different people before that time. The change has been brutal for those of us able to hold on to enough to see it for what it is. We were handed a genuine opportunity to actually lead the free world, and that meant more then to more people, but I digress. We, and by that I mean our government we chose to lead, and our inaction about it all, squandered that opportunity to pursue a war of choice for oil while at the same time abusing legitimate shock and awe for the purpose of passing surveillance legislation haunting us to this day. Among other things. We lost serious credence then. Most of the world was anxious to see us walk our talk in the face of terror and we just didn't. Now, there are many events, governments toppled, resources secured, business moved or changed, and more that all holds similar potential. I am not saying we will be held to account on all that today. Of course not! But, I am saying what we do, the attitudes we hold dear actually do really matter to a whole lot of people who may or may not be inclined to act on it. There is our credence and reputable nature as seen by our own people, other nations and their leaders and people, and finally by elite people, essentially able to accumulate such wealth and power as to be ungovernable, free in the most basic of ways. These will all play out in subtle ways. One will need a serious stretch of time to see a meaningful impact.
    - toolz 2y ago
      > We will see signs over the next Presidential term. Maybe, maybe not. People who actually know what the future holds stand to make a lot of money simply with market speculation. As it turns out, very few people are capable of beating the market while many claim they know what will happen in the future. I'm very skeptical of anyone who makes bold claims about the future. Especially while ignoring the question to whether any objective metrics exist today that show our credibility is in decline.
      - ddingus 2y ago
        Objective metrics are very hard. I expanded my comment above to explain why. And to your point, these things are glacial. As they should be. Finally, I will point out this dynamic is "signed" in the sense of say benefit of the doubt as opposed to a direct punitive action. Call the latter a negative and the former a positive. Opportunity costs are another way to think about all this. We do not have a perfect history to draw from. There goes your objective metric right there. We do have assessments and expectations that may or may not align, or be met, and those are how I generally evaluate these things. Be secure in your skepticism! I am of my own. The major impact may well be a shift in basic trust, changes in expectations. Things like the petrodollar seeing change and or there being alternatives really matter! A
- hmmm-i-wonder 2y ago
  Out of curiosity, what has the US claimed it isn't doing, but has been doing, that other countries haven't also done? While they certainly have lost trust, have they lost more trust than any other govt in the modern day where govt narratives are routinely exposed?
- pfdietz 2y ago
  Why is credibility a good thing? For example, the US has credibility that it will defend Europe. What is the consequence of this? Europe slacking off on its own defense. This has socked the US with large expenses for decades. I get the impression credibility is sugarcoating the idea that the US should do what others want, not what is in the best interests of the US. There's a lot to be said for incredibility: doing things that no one expects or even believes possible.
  - ddingus 2y ago
    Are you not asking two questions? Credence is a good thing because others can understand websay what we do and do what we say. This is high value! Expectations can be set and met with confidence. So much depends on that being solid! Your other question, "Is the expectation the US will defend Europe a good thing?" Frankly deserves and would be a good discussion I would read with interest.
    - pfdietz 2y ago
      We are in an adversarial relationship with everyone else, even allies, because our interests are not identical. Game theory says there's value in unpredictability. Optimal strategies in games can involve randomness. To the extent we are credible, this reduces our unpredictability. In the specific example of defending Europe, our credibility enables Europe to adopt a strategy of sponging off the US. Arguably the US would be better off if there was more doubt in Europe about whether we'd actually follow through on commitments.

MichaelZuo 2y ago

Well it’s great… except for all the credibility the US lost abroad after claiming for several decades to not be doing many of those things under cover. Trading away what took over 200 years to build up, and will need another 200 years to regain to the same extent, isn’t smart.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
toolz 2y ago
Do you have an objective metric that suggests the US has lost (or is losing) credibility? I don't see any signs of it.
- MichaelZuo 2y ago
  UN voting patterns. e.g. In the 1990s General Assembly it was far from certain that the US would lose most of the contenious ones involving the US, every year, except maybe the annual Cuba vote. Whereas in 2023-2024, well you can check yourself. A lot of the time even countries like Norway or Ireland or Mexico vote against the US.
  - toolz 2y ago
    Do you have a link to anything that shows the data analysis on our voting patterns having less international backing in recent times? I see the data and can plot out a trend myself, but if someone has already done better analysis I'm curious to read more about what you're talking about. edit: I did a simple chart over all the UN votes sorted by date and the amount of votes that match USA votes seems to increase over time, but the real issue is that the vote data only went through 2021. At a quick glance the only data I can find does not match what you're suggesting.
    - MichaelZuo 2y ago
      Huh? I clearly see the General Assembly voting results on their website starting way before 2021?
- ddingus 2y ago
  We will see signs over the next Presidential term. And frankly, some from the current one. And we have a couple generations, maybe a few --probably a few, some of age and ready to take the reigns of governance, who feel the US has things to answer for. Whether they will act is another discussion. A diminished US credence is a logical consequence of our policy choices. A big one was actually 9/11. We were a different people before that time. The change has been brutal for those of us able to hold on to enough to see it for what it is. We were handed a genuine opportunity to actually lead the free world, and that meant more then to more people, but I digress. We, and by that I mean our government we chose to lead, and our inaction about it all, squandered that opportunity to pursue a war of choice for oil while at the same time abusing legitimate shock and awe for the purpose of passing surveillance legislation haunting us to this day. Among other things. We lost serious credence then. Most of the world was anxious to see us walk our talk in the face of terror and we just didn't. Now, there are many events, governments toppled, resources secured, business moved or changed, and more that all holds similar potential. I am not saying we will be held to account on all that today. Of course not! But, I am saying what we do, the attitudes we hold dear actually do really matter to a whole lot of people who may or may not be inclined to act on it. There is our credence and reputable nature as seen by our own people, other nations and their leaders and people, and finally by elite people, essentially able to accumulate such wealth and power as to be ungovernable, free in the most basic of ways. These will all play out in subtle ways. One will need a serious stretch of time to see a meaningful impact.
  - toolz 2y ago
    > We will see signs over the next Presidential term. Maybe, maybe not. People who actually know what the future holds stand to make a lot of money simply with market speculation. As it turns out, very few people are capable of beating the market while many claim they know what will happen in the future. I'm very skeptical of anyone who makes bold claims about the future. Especially while ignoring the question to whether any objective metrics exist today that show our credibility is in decline.
    - ddingus 2y ago
      Objective metrics are very hard. I expanded my comment above to explain why. And to your point, these things are glacial. As they should be. Finally, I will point out this dynamic is "signed" in the sense of say benefit of the doubt as opposed to a direct punitive action. Call the latter a negative and the former a positive. Opportunity costs are another way to think about all this. We do not have a perfect history to draw from. There goes your objective metric right there. We do have assessments and expectations that may or may not align, or be met, and those are how I generally evaluate these things. Be secure in your skepticism! I am of my own. The major impact may well be a shift in basic trust, changes in expectations. Things like the petrodollar seeing change and or there being alternatives really matter! A
hmmm-i-wonder 2y ago
Out of curiosity, what has the US claimed it isn't doing, but has been doing, that other countries haven't also done? While they certainly have lost trust, have they lost more trust than any other govt in the modern day where govt narratives are routinely exposed?
pfdietz 2y ago
Why is credibility a good thing? For example, the US has credibility that it will defend Europe. What is the consequence of this? Europe slacking off on its own defense. This has socked the US with large expenses for decades. I get the impression credibility is sugarcoating the idea that the US should do what others want, not what is in the best interests of the US. There's a lot to be said for incredibility: doing things that no one expects or even believes possible.
- ddingus 2y ago
  Are you not asking two questions? Credence is a good thing because others can understand websay what we do and do what we say. This is high value! Expectations can be set and met with confidence. So much depends on that being solid! Your other question, "Is the expectation the US will defend Europe a good thing?" Frankly deserves and would be a good discussion I would read with interest.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    We are in an adversarial relationship with everyone else, even allies, because our interests are not identical. Game theory says there's value in unpredictability. Optimal strategies in games can involve randomness. To the extent we are credible, this reduces our unpredictability. In the specific example of defending Europe, our credibility enables Europe to adopt a strategy of sponging off the US. Arguably the US would be better off if there was more doubt in Europe about whether we'd actually follow through on commitments.