3 ms·

It’s Hacker News, not an essay. It isn’t fallacious, it’s an abbreviation. It would be possible for us to continue propping up our allies who seemed (until Tru

It’s Hacker News, not an essay. It isn’t fallacious, it’s an abbreviation. It would be possible for us to continue propping up our allies who seemed (until Trump made it clear we might just take our ball and go home) completely uninterested in meeting the defense obligations agreed to, but it would come at a cost that would bankrupt us without us making other major sacrifices. We shouldn’t have to make those sacrifices to ensure the security of people who claim to be allies but don’t meet their own contractual obligations. I don’t find myself agreeing with Trump on very much, but on this one, he’s not only right, he’s the only person who could have caused any change. No other politician of either party was ever going to convince Europe to significantly increase military spending, even with the threat of Russia at their door. It’s fairly obvious that was meant, and your comment is basically just the standard hacker news “aaaaactually”

justin66 10mo ago
"Propping up our allies" in Europe and therefore having a great deal of sway in international affairs netted the United States a great deal of money for a very long time. There's a longer argument to be had (one directly related to what Piketty is saying) but clearly no desire for it, which is fine.
- pfdietz 10mo ago
  You mean, it allowed the US to continue to borrow beyond its means without being called on it. Thanks a whole lot, world.
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
  - justin66 10mo ago
    Look at the chart representing the US national debt (or debt to GDP) and pick a point at which you say "wow, that's when we started borrowing beyond our means." I rather doubt the date you pick will be anywhere close to the time eight decades ago when the US decided to start "propping up our allies." That worked well for us financially for a really long time, and the contributors to the current debt crisis lie elsewhere.

justin66 10mo ago

"Propping up our allies" in Europe and therefore having a great deal of sway in international affairs netted the United States a great deal of money for a very long time. There's a longer argument to be had (one directly related to what Piketty is saying) but clearly no desire for it, which is fine.

pfdietz 10mo ago
You mean, it allowed the US to continue to borrow beyond its means without being called on it. Thanks a whole lot, world.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- justin66 10mo ago
  Look at the chart representing the US national debt (or debt to GDP) and pick a point at which you say "wow, that's when we started borrowing beyond our means." I rather doubt the date you pick will be anywhere close to the time eight decades ago when the US decided to start "propping up our allies." That worked well for us financially for a really long time, and the contributors to the current debt crisis lie elsewhere.