4 ms·

Yep. It’s odd to see classic third world dictator antics in the most powerful country in the world, but not at all unexpected given who’s running it.

by padjo 1y ago

noir_lord 1y ago
> the most powerful country in the world. For now, I live in the former most powerful country in the world prior to the rise of the US.
- kangalioo 1y ago
  Which is, the UK? China?
  - tialaramex 1y ago
    The UK. It had this huge navy, which amusingly is where its central bank comes from. An English Parliament wanted to buy the greatest navy the world had ever seen but that's very expensive, so their cunning scheme was, license some business people to run an exclusive Bank of England, secured by the word of the British government, the income from this funds a navy and the successors of that navy were still dominant into the 20th century. The fact that the Bank of England was historically a private business is awkward when it comes to explaining to some modern country why it's not OK that their central bank is giving the leader's nephew $100M in unsecured loans, and this sort of discomfort is part of why it was bought by the British government and gradually ceased operating as a private bank in my lifetime. When I was younger I knew people whose mortgage was issued by the country's central bank. Not like celebrities or politicians or anything, just bureaucrats who got a good deal, sort of "mates rates" but for a house loan.
diggan 1y ago
> but not at all unexpected given who’s running it To be fair, this has felt like the natural consequence of the "maximize capitalism without regarding the downsides" maxim the US seems to have been operated under for a long time. Corporations have been (indirectly) running the country for some decades at this point, it's just way more obvious and in the face now when a "businessman" sits as president.
- defrost 1y ago
  Maximize crony capitalism and oligarchy, perhaps. The US drifted far from any form of pure open market laissez-faire capitalism or balanced regulated capitalism some time past.
  - andrepd 1y ago
    Yes, your "pure" capitalism tends to do that. Kinda similar to the people who say of the SU "but it was not true communism".
    - defrost 1y ago
      The people that founded the SU openly declared that it wasn't communism, just a managed phase on the way to actual communism (that never happened). Either way, we're talking here about small in groups treating a larger out group as sheep to be manipulated and harvested.
      - exe34 1y ago
        It's almost like the road didn't go where they said it would.
        defrost 1y ago
        Pretty much, I'm naturally cynical about any waving about of either "Capitalism" or "Communism" as neither has really existed in any pure form and the devil is always in the details. That, and the propensity of those who seek power to dangle whatever shiny utopia best suits their end of fooling the masses.
  - kristopolous 1y ago
    "open market laissez-faire capitalism" was the explicit policy goal for maybe 50 years. The idea that if it was only somehow more pure in some ideological virtue, then it would have worked, you'll need really hard historical material empirical evidence to defend such a claim Not that it wasn't white and pure enough but that if it was the shade whiter you advocate for, it would have somehow been a complete 180°, like some magical threshold

Yep. It’s odd to see classic third world dictator antics in the most powerful country in the world, but not at all unexpected given who’s running it.

by padjo 1y ago

Yep. It’s odd to see classic third world dictator antics in the most powerful country in the world, but not at all unexpected given who’s running it.

noir_lord 1y ago

> the most powerful country in the world. For now, I live in the former most powerful country in the world prior to the rise of the US.

kangalioo 1y ago
Which is, the UK? China?
- tialaramex 1y ago
  The UK. It had this huge navy, which amusingly is where its central bank comes from. An English Parliament wanted to buy the greatest navy the world had ever seen but that's very expensive, so their cunning scheme was, license some business people to run an exclusive Bank of England, secured by the word of the British government, the income from this funds a navy and the successors of that navy were still dominant into the 20th century. The fact that the Bank of England was historically a private business is awkward when it comes to explaining to some modern country why it's not OK that their central bank is giving the leader's nephew $100M in unsecured loans, and this sort of discomfort is part of why it was bought by the British government and gradually ceased operating as a private bank in my lifetime. When I was younger I knew people whose mortgage was issued by the country's central bank. Not like celebrities or politicians or anything, just bureaucrats who got a good deal, sort of "mates rates" but for a house loan.

diggan 1y ago

> but not at all unexpected given who’s running it To be fair, this has felt like the natural consequence of the "maximize capitalism without regarding the downsides" maxim the US seems to have been operated under for a long time. Corporations have been (indirectly) running the country for some decades at this point, it's just way more obvious and in the face now when a "businessman" sits as president.

defrost 1y ago
Maximize crony capitalism and oligarchy, perhaps. The US drifted far from any form of pure open market laissez-faire capitalism or balanced regulated capitalism some time past.
- andrepd 1y ago
  Yes, your "pure" capitalism tends to do that. Kinda similar to the people who say of the SU "but it was not true communism".
  - defrost 1y ago
    The people that founded the SU openly declared that it wasn't communism, just a managed phase on the way to actual communism (that never happened). Either way, we're talking here about small in groups treating a larger out group as sheep to be manipulated and harvested.
    - exe34 1y ago
      It's almost like the road didn't go where they said it would.
      - defrost 1y ago
        Pretty much, I'm naturally cynical about any waving about of either "Capitalism" or "Communism" as neither has really existed in any pure form and the devil is always in the details. That, and the propensity of those who seek power to dangle whatever shiny utopia best suits their end of fooling the masses.
- kristopolous 1y ago
  "open market laissez-faire capitalism" was the explicit policy goal for maybe 50 years. The idea that if it was only somehow more pure in some ideological virtue, then it would have worked, you'll need really hard historical material empirical evidence to defend such a claim Not that it wasn't white and pure enough but that if it was the shade whiter you advocate for, it would have somehow been a complete 180°, like some magical threshold