4 ms·

I am inclined to think this can't be true, but I have to admit that this would be nothing more than cope. The US State is collapsing right in front of our eyes

I am inclined to think this can't be true, but I have to admit that this would be nothing more than cope. The US State is collapsing right in front of our eyes. Frightening. The US public still distracted by imaginary internal enemies, some prefer to keep pretending nothing is happening, others complying out of fear, media moguls distorting information sphere, the mess is complete. Cue a dog in a burning house, "All is fine" All public institutions overtaken, competent people have to leave. What is happening behind the scenes is hidden by a professional chaos actor creating a new crisis everyday. There is not much hope left.

chiengineer 2y ago
You forgot to talk about the newest conspiracy man You have to blame DEI and fire all the air traffic controllers duh
- exceptione 2y ago
  Like air traffic controllers are fungible indeed. Chaos chaos, so the oligarchs and christian nationalists can decapitate the modern state. The stealing and the plundering has begun. 1890 returns while the rest is asleep.
  - chiengineer 2y ago
    Let's just be glad they aren't smart enough to make encryption illegal yet I'll come back next month once it's banned and edit this
  - pixl97 2y ago
    Hell, hope it's the 1890s and not a speed run of the 1930s.
    - chiengineer 2y ago
      The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (1930) – A Historical Disaster The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act is one of the most infamous examples of how tariffs can backfire catastrophically. It was originally intended to protect American farmers and industries from foreign competition during the onset of the Great Depression. However, it exacerbated the economic crisis and led to a global trade collapse. --- Background The Great Depression was beginning in 1929, with the stock market crash causing widespread economic distress. U.S. legislators, led by Senators Reed Smoot and Willis Hawley, passed the tariff to protect domestic agriculture and manufacturing from foreign competition. The law raised tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods, some by as much as 60%. --- The Immediate Consequences 1. Foreign Retaliation and Trade War Over 60 countries retaliated by imposing their own tariffs on U.S. exports. U.S. agricultural exports collapsed as major buyers (like Canada and Europe) stopped purchasing American farm products. Canada, the U.S.'s biggest trading partner, imposed heavy tariffs on American goods, devastating trade between the two countries. 2. Collapse of Global Trade World trade plummeted by 66% between 1929 and 1934. The U.S. saw a 61% decline in its exports in just two years. Many businesses reliant on international trade went bankrupt, worsening unemployment. 3. Massive Job Losses & Economic Depression U.S. industries that depended on international markets suffered major layoffs. Unemployment in the U.S. skyrocketed from 8% in 1930 to 25% by 1933. Small businesses, especially those in farming and manufacturing, collapsed. 4. Agricultural Sector Devastation Farmers were already struggling from falling prices due to overproduction. The tariffs cut off international markets for U.S. farm products, causing massive surpluses and price drops. Thousands of farms went bankrupt, leading to foreclosures and mass migration. --- Long-Term Fallout The tariff is widely blamed for deepening and prolonging the Great Depression in the U.S. It damaged diplomatic relations, making it harder for nations to cooperate economically. By 1934, the U.S. reversed course, with President Franklin D. Roosevelt signing the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act to lower tariffs and restore trade. Economists today use Smoot-Hawley as a cautionary tale of how protectionist policies can backfire. --- Lessons from Smoot-Hawley for Today Tariffs can lead to retaliation, making U.S. exports suffer more than imports. Trade wars harm both consumers and businesses, driving up costs and causing job losses. Global trade interdependence means isolationist policies are riskier than ever. Economic downturns should be met with stimulus and trade expansion, not restrictions
    - tim333 2y ago
      I was thinking we've got a set up for that. Trump tariffs, Musk wanting to cut 2trn in spending, and stock markets at record highs due to the AI bubble. In the 30s it was the 1929 crash after the electricity bubble. I doubt it'd be quite as bad. "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce" as they say.
  - CRConrad 2y ago
    > 1890 returns while the rest is asleep. Typo on the year; it was about 1980 that the air traffic controllers were last the target of presidential threats.
tim333 2y ago
While it's kind of nuts, the US public did just elect this lot so I guess now they have them. See this from before the election https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1830829538118381574 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1830829538118381574
- exceptione 2y ago
  They still don't know. The public has learned that it is all about 'owning the libs'. People have been conditioned to NOT think about what would be positive policy. I.e. sadopopulism: the government makes you hurt, and then you want somebody else to hurt more.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    Rooting out the "Resistance" in the executive branch--the democrats who run the country regardless of who wins the election--is literally Item #9 of Trump's 2024 platform: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2024-republican-party-platform https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2024-republican-pa.... I think that for the most part federal employees are good people who work just as hard for one president as another. I used to work at a government agency. It was full of fantastic, dedicated, hard working people. But in recent years there seems to be a large number of people who think that being a federal employee gives them the right to use their positions to “Resist” what people voted for. And such thinking has no place in our democracy. And it’s shameful that federal employees didn’t condemn what happened in 2017.
    - SR2Z 2y ago
      > Executive branch employees should have no ability to resist or frustrate those changes. Yes, they should. Unless you believe that it's so easy to run the government that you can replace all the workers every four years (doubtful at best), you need to keep these people in their roles. It doesn't matter what the Constitution theorizes; the simple truth is that an advanced country needs career civil servants capable of thinking for themselves. That inherently means they will loudly disagree if they think the president is doing something stupid.
rayiner 2y ago
Please read Article II of the Constitution: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/. OPM isn't an "institution." It's the HR department for the executive branch, which has a new CEO. And nothing is "happening behind the scenes" or "hidden." The guy who won the election literally had Musk camped out in Pennsylvania for the last week before the election promising to do this. And now he's tweeting everything he's doing in real time. And the the linked article--the fact that the official National Park Service has what calls itself a "Resistance team"--is exactly why Trump voters were excited at the prospect of Musk doing this. We cannot have a democracy if executive branch employees think they have license to "Resist" the elected President's agenda.
- exceptione 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - rayiner 2y ago
    I truly do not understand what sentiment you're trying to convey. The article is literally from a Blusky group that calls itself the "Resistance team of the U.S. National Park Service." How can you possibly condone the existence of that? What kind of government do you think we have?
  - cheaprentalyeti 2y ago
    As an "other" I'd like to point out that the OPM database was handed over to China on a silver platter in 2012 and noone was fired or otherwise disciplined and noone lost their pension. This likely outed everyone who was operationally covert during the time period covered by the database at that time, which was ~ 40 years. And noone cared then.
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946 contains the rule that prevents the U.S. executive branch from acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner. You can't just come in and 'arbitrarily' change things. That is the law of the land for 70 years, backed up by the Supreme Court (including against Trump during his last term). That law provides the stability that makes the USA number one in the world. Without that stability, there is no investment in business. There is no selling US bonds. There is not dollar as the world's reserve currency.
maeil 2y ago
Stop coping. Repeat out loud after me: "The US has collapsed similarly. A coup has taken place like that similar to Putin when he rose to power. China, the US, and Russia are three single-party dictatorships which are controlled by the party in a totalitarian manner." The sooner everyone starts admitting this, the sooner something can be done about it.
dzhiurgis 2y ago
Or maybe that’s what people who defraud billions per year want you to think…

chiengineer 2y ago

You forgot to talk about the newest conspiracy man You have to blame DEI and fire all the air traffic controllers duh

exceptione 2y ago
Like air traffic controllers are fungible indeed. Chaos chaos, so the oligarchs and christian nationalists can decapitate the modern state. The stealing and the plundering has begun. 1890 returns while the rest is asleep.
- chiengineer 2y ago
  Let's just be glad they aren't smart enough to make encryption illegal yet I'll come back next month once it's banned and edit this
- pixl97 2y ago
  Hell, hope it's the 1890s and not a speed run of the 1930s.
  - chiengineer 2y ago
    The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (1930) – A Historical Disaster The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act is one of the most infamous examples of how tariffs can backfire catastrophically. It was originally intended to protect American farmers and industries from foreign competition during the onset of the Great Depression. However, it exacerbated the economic crisis and led to a global trade collapse. --- Background The Great Depression was beginning in 1929, with the stock market crash causing widespread economic distress. U.S. legislators, led by Senators Reed Smoot and Willis Hawley, passed the tariff to protect domestic agriculture and manufacturing from foreign competition. The law raised tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods, some by as much as 60%. --- The Immediate Consequences 1. Foreign Retaliation and Trade War Over 60 countries retaliated by imposing their own tariffs on U.S. exports. U.S. agricultural exports collapsed as major buyers (like Canada and Europe) stopped purchasing American farm products. Canada, the U.S.'s biggest trading partner, imposed heavy tariffs on American goods, devastating trade between the two countries. 2. Collapse of Global Trade World trade plummeted by 66% between 1929 and 1934. The U.S. saw a 61% decline in its exports in just two years. Many businesses reliant on international trade went bankrupt, worsening unemployment. 3. Massive Job Losses & Economic Depression U.S. industries that depended on international markets suffered major layoffs. Unemployment in the U.S. skyrocketed from 8% in 1930 to 25% by 1933. Small businesses, especially those in farming and manufacturing, collapsed. 4. Agricultural Sector Devastation Farmers were already struggling from falling prices due to overproduction. The tariffs cut off international markets for U.S. farm products, causing massive surpluses and price drops. Thousands of farms went bankrupt, leading to foreclosures and mass migration. --- Long-Term Fallout The tariff is widely blamed for deepening and prolonging the Great Depression in the U.S. It damaged diplomatic relations, making it harder for nations to cooperate economically. By 1934, the U.S. reversed course, with President Franklin D. Roosevelt signing the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act to lower tariffs and restore trade. Economists today use Smoot-Hawley as a cautionary tale of how protectionist policies can backfire. --- Lessons from Smoot-Hawley for Today Tariffs can lead to retaliation, making U.S. exports suffer more than imports. Trade wars harm both consumers and businesses, driving up costs and causing job losses. Global trade interdependence means isolationist policies are riskier than ever. Economic downturns should be met with stimulus and trade expansion, not restrictions
  - tim333 2y ago
    I was thinking we've got a set up for that. Trump tariffs, Musk wanting to cut 2trn in spending, and stock markets at record highs due to the AI bubble. In the 30s it was the 1929 crash after the electricity bubble. I doubt it'd be quite as bad. "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce" as they say.
- CRConrad 2y ago
  > 1890 returns while the rest is asleep. Typo on the year; it was about 1980 that the air traffic controllers were last the target of presidential threats.

tim333 2y ago

While it's kind of nuts, the US public did just elect this lot so I guess now they have them. See this from before the election https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1830829538118381574 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1830829538118381574

exceptione 2y ago
They still don't know. The public has learned that it is all about 'owning the libs'. People have been conditioned to NOT think about what would be positive policy. I.e. sadopopulism: the government makes you hurt, and then you want somebody else to hurt more.
- rayiner 2y ago
  Rooting out the "Resistance" in the executive branch--the democrats who run the country regardless of who wins the election--is literally Item #9 of Trump's 2024 platform: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2024-republican-party-platform https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2024-republican-pa.... I think that for the most part federal employees are good people who work just as hard for one president as another. I used to work at a government agency. It was full of fantastic, dedicated, hard working people. But in recent years there seems to be a large number of people who think that being a federal employee gives them the right to use their positions to “Resist” what people voted for. And such thinking has no place in our democracy. And it’s shameful that federal employees didn’t condemn what happened in 2017.
  - SR2Z 2y ago
    > Executive branch employees should have no ability to resist or frustrate those changes. Yes, they should. Unless you believe that it's so easy to run the government that you can replace all the workers every four years (doubtful at best), you need to keep these people in their roles. It doesn't matter what the Constitution theorizes; the simple truth is that an advanced country needs career civil servants capable of thinking for themselves. That inherently means they will loudly disagree if they think the president is doing something stupid.

rayiner 2y ago

Please read Article II of the Constitution: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/. OPM isn't an "institution." It's the HR department for the executive branch, which has a new CEO. And nothing is "happening behind the scenes" or "hidden." The guy who won the election literally had Musk camped out in Pennsylvania for the last week before the election promising to do this. And now he's tweeting everything he's doing in real time. And the the linked article--the fact that the official National Park Service has what calls itself a "Resistance team"--is exactly why Trump voters were excited at the prospect of Musk doing this. We cannot have a democracy if executive branch employees think they have license to "Resist" the elected President's agenda.

exceptione 2y ago
[flagged]
- rayiner 2y ago
  I truly do not understand what sentiment you're trying to convey. The article is literally from a Blusky group that calls itself the "Resistance team of the U.S. National Park Service." How can you possibly condone the existence of that? What kind of government do you think we have?
- cheaprentalyeti 2y ago
  As an "other" I'd like to point out that the OPM database was handed over to China on a silver platter in 2012 and noone was fired or otherwise disciplined and noone lost their pension. This likely outed everyone who was operationally covert during the time period covered by the database at that time, which was ~ 40 years. And noone cared then.
_DeadFred_ 2y ago
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946 contains the rule that prevents the U.S. executive branch from acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner. You can't just come in and 'arbitrarily' change things. That is the law of the land for 70 years, backed up by the Supreme Court (including against Trump during his last term). That law provides the stability that makes the USA number one in the world. Without that stability, there is no investment in business. There is no selling US bonds. There is not dollar as the world's reserve currency.

maeil 2y ago

Stop coping. Repeat out loud after me: "The US has collapsed similarly. A coup has taken place like that similar to Putin when he rose to power. China, the US, and Russia are three single-party dictatorships which are controlled by the party in a totalitarian manner." The sooner everyone starts admitting this, the sooner something can be done about it.

dzhiurgis 2y ago

Or maybe that’s what people who defraud billions per year want you to think…