4 ms·

Yet many Americans share this philosophy - sad times.

palmotea 2y ago
> Yet many Americans share this philosophy - sad times. I don't recall where I read it, but the US government basically made the decision to subsidize the world in order to maintain a system/empire where it (or more specifically its elites) has the most influence. That's why you see things like severely imbalanced trade flows, the US maintaining the massive Navy in peacetime that makes globalized trade possible, etc. Ultimately, the biggest price is paid by those on the bottom, with the least power. Trump is basically the pent up resentment from those decisions overflowing. The people hurt by those decisions aren't sophisticates, but they've still been hurt and due have a legitimate bone to pick. So, ultimately, the fault lies with the elites who made those decisions. Personally, I blame the Democrats for Trump, because they doubled down on the status quo and did not offer choices that would answer these resentments (e.g. Sanders), all while they were screaming about the dangers of Trump. I think they were more focused on their own elite interests, and thought they could get away with Trump's negatives masking their own, winning again on a 50%+1 squeaker. Trump should have been an easy candidate to beat.
- verzali 2y ago
  America as a whole benefits from being the world hegemon. Having the dollar as the reserve currency has allowed the US to run massive deficits, impose economic sanctions, and get cheaper resources (especially oil). All Americans have benefited from this - even the poorest American state would count as one of the richest nations in the world if it were independent. If the people at the bottom don't see that, then its a fault of inequality in the American system. All nations and societies need to distribute wealth in some way, and there's nothing that says America needs to be high unequal to maintain its empire (or says tht having an empire implies inequality). That American society is so unequal is a decision that Americans have made. I doubt this is really because of the elites - America makes a big deal out of its democracy and even party leaders are elected by the people. But it is still a choice Americans have made. Reliniquishing the empire will not help the people at the bottom. A world in which China dominates, in which the global reserve currency is the yuan or the euro, is not one in which Americans of any wealth prosper.
  - palmotea 2y ago
    > America as a whole benefits from being the world hegemon. Having the dollar as the reserve currency has allowed the US to run massive deficits, impose economic sanctions, and get cheaper resources (especially oil). All Americans have benefited from this - even the poorest American state would count as one of the richest nations in the world if it were independent. That's the propaganda line, but it sounds like GDP-per-capita, where it neglects the effects of inequality (as you mention later). It's not going to resonate for the guy who lost his job and had his community decimated, because his employer moved the factory he worked at to Mexico or China. > That American society is so unequal is a decision that Americans have made. I doubt this is really because of the elites - America makes a big deal out of its democracy and even party leaders are elected by the people. But it is still a choice Americans have made. It's "a decision that [SOME] Americans have made," it's not a decision that was made, freely and fairly, by Americans, collectively. I think the thing you're missing is that inequality leads to an inequality of domestic power. The people who benefit from that inequality have is disproportionate effect on the discourse (by funding think tanks, etc.), on candidate selection, etc. That leads to a menu of options where the elite always win (Anand Giridharadas has written some stuff on "win-win" that's relevant). > Reliniquishing the empire will not help the people at the bottom. A world in which China dominates, in which the global reserve currency is the yuan or the euro, is not one in which Americans of any wealth prosper. It will not, but ultimately the blame lies on the wealthy Americans who got too greedy, not the Americans that are typically blamed (e.g. people on the bottom who voted for the disapproved guy).
- nullocator 2y ago
  > Ultimately, the biggest price is paid by those on the bottom, with the least power. What price specifically has or is being paid by those in the U.S. with the least power? That price whatever it is, is 100% due to U.S. foreign policy decisions? It's really not clear to me how decades of mostly stable global relations has concretely hurt the average American. Their wages have been depressed by domestic capitalism. The lack of housing can be largely attributed to bad local and domestic policy. The cost of groceries if anything are as low as they are because of global trade, not in spite of it. These are the things I hear people concerned about, I don't think I've ever in my life heard an average person express the sentiment that everything would just be better if we fucked over all our allies.
- tzs 2y ago
  Isn't a big factor in US trade deficits the US being a richer country than most of its trade partners?

> Yet many Americans share this philosophy - sad times. I don't recall where I read it, but the US government basically made the decision to subsidize the world in order to maintain a system/empire where it (or more specifically its elites) has the most influence. That's why you see things like severely imbalanced trade flows, the US maintaining the massive Navy in peacetime that makes globalized trade possible, etc. Ultimately, the biggest price is paid by those on the bottom, with the least power. Trump is basically the pent up resentment from those decisions overflowing. The people hurt by those decisions aren't sophisticates, but they've still been hurt and due have a legitimate bone to pick. So, ultimately, the fault lies with the elites who made those decisions. Personally, I blame the Democrats for Trump, because they doubled down on the status quo and did not offer choices that would answer these resentments (e.g. Sanders), all while they were screaming about the dangers of Trump. I think they were more focused on their own elite interests, and thought they could get away with Trump's negatives masking their own, winning again on a 50%+1 squeaker. Trump should have been an easy candidate to beat.

verzali 2y ago
America as a whole benefits from being the world hegemon. Having the dollar as the reserve currency has allowed the US to run massive deficits, impose economic sanctions, and get cheaper resources (especially oil). All Americans have benefited from this - even the poorest American state would count as one of the richest nations in the world if it were independent. If the people at the bottom don't see that, then its a fault of inequality in the American system. All nations and societies need to distribute wealth in some way, and there's nothing that says America needs to be high unequal to maintain its empire (or says tht having an empire implies inequality). That American society is so unequal is a decision that Americans have made. I doubt this is really because of the elites - America makes a big deal out of its democracy and even party leaders are elected by the people. But it is still a choice Americans have made. Reliniquishing the empire will not help the people at the bottom. A world in which China dominates, in which the global reserve currency is the yuan or the euro, is not one in which Americans of any wealth prosper.
- palmotea 2y ago
  > America as a whole benefits from being the world hegemon. Having the dollar as the reserve currency has allowed the US to run massive deficits, impose economic sanctions, and get cheaper resources (especially oil). All Americans have benefited from this - even the poorest American state would count as one of the richest nations in the world if it were independent. That's the propaganda line, but it sounds like GDP-per-capita, where it neglects the effects of inequality (as you mention later). It's not going to resonate for the guy who lost his job and had his community decimated, because his employer moved the factory he worked at to Mexico or China. > That American society is so unequal is a decision that Americans have made. I doubt this is really because of the elites - America makes a big deal out of its democracy and even party leaders are elected by the people. But it is still a choice Americans have made. It's "a decision that [SOME] Americans have made," it's not a decision that was made, freely and fairly, by Americans, collectively. I think the thing you're missing is that inequality leads to an inequality of domestic power. The people who benefit from that inequality have is disproportionate effect on the discourse (by funding think tanks, etc.), on candidate selection, etc. That leads to a menu of options where the elite always win (Anand Giridharadas has written some stuff on "win-win" that's relevant). > Reliniquishing the empire will not help the people at the bottom. A world in which China dominates, in which the global reserve currency is the yuan or the euro, is not one in which Americans of any wealth prosper. It will not, but ultimately the blame lies on the wealthy Americans who got too greedy, not the Americans that are typically blamed (e.g. people on the bottom who voted for the disapproved guy).
nullocator 2y ago
> Ultimately, the biggest price is paid by those on the bottom, with the least power. What price specifically has or is being paid by those in the U.S. with the least power? That price whatever it is, is 100% due to U.S. foreign policy decisions? It's really not clear to me how decades of mostly stable global relations has concretely hurt the average American. Their wages have been depressed by domestic capitalism. The lack of housing can be largely attributed to bad local and domestic policy. The cost of groceries if anything are as low as they are because of global trade, not in spite of it. These are the things I hear people concerned about, I don't think I've ever in my life heard an average person express the sentiment that everything would just be better if we fucked over all our allies.
tzs 2y ago
Isn't a big factor in US trade deficits the US being a richer country than most of its trade partners?