4 ms·

The irony of Make America Great Again speed running the exact opposite.

by cdrnsf 9mo ago

kccoder 9mo ago
More often than not the opposite of what Trump says is closer to the truth.
rayiner 9mo ago
[flagged]
- surgical_fire 9mo ago
  At the expense of alliance and trade with the whole of EU? And damaged relations for the foreseeable future? I am not from the US. If I was I wouldn't be very thrilled for it, no.
  - dvfjsdhgfv 9mo ago
    Not just the EU. The USA has no more allies and is not perceived as a reliable partner at any level. Sure, officially they will shake hands and say whatever is needed but in the meantime new partnerships are being created because in this chaotic world stability has a big value.
    - surgical_fire 9mo ago
      Yes, and I am fine with that. I live in the EU, and I think it will actually be very positive in the medium to long term that the EU sheds its dependency on the US and starts treating it for what it is - a hostile foreign nation. The Mercosur trade agreement, for example, is something great that came out of this. Trump finally pushed the EU to look for good partnerships elsewhere. So, in a sense, this whole bullshit with Greenland may have positive outcomes still. I am hoping that the EU uses the anti-coercion instrument against the US and their companies.
      - coumbaya 9mo ago
        The mercosur being great I'm not so sure... Yeah let's import a lot of agricultural products that can use banned chemicals why our farmers can't and so can't compete, just so that Geemany can export a few cars...
        surgical_fire 9mo ago
        That's not what the deal is.
- palata 9mo ago
  > But you have to admit it would be an objective win for America in terms of increasing its own resources. Quite obviously. Just like robbing a bank is an objective win in terms of increasing one's own money. But maybe not in terms of not going to jail.
- fatbird 9mo ago
  What America got, by being the heavyweight in NATO, was the greatest economy the world has ever seen. America got rich by selling Europe a nuclear umbrella, which kept the peace, and let Europe go cheap on defense and long on developing their own economies in tandem. The USD as global reserve currency means the world loans money to the US at the lowest possible interest rate; the US extended that credit to its businesses and education system and infrastructure. What America loses by gaining Greenland is that worldwide market and those close defense relationships forming a common bloc. The US dollar stops being the reserve currency; America's cheap credit line dries up. American soft power in Europe is gone, and Europe aligns itself with China or Russia for stability, and becomes an American adversary. All so you can have, what, a bunch of melting glaciers?
  - rayiner 9mo ago
    > What America got, by being the heavyweight in NATO, was the greatest economy the world has ever seen. America got rich by selling Europe a nuclear umbrella But this just isn’t true! The U.S. overtook the UK in per capita GDP in 1880, near the peak of the British Empire: https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/us-gdp-per-capita https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/us-gdp-per-cap.... At that point the UK was already significantly richer than the rest of europe. If you look at GDP growth rate, the US has consistently averaged 1.7% GDP per capita growth over the past 200 years. The mass industrialization during the war itself spike growth and helped recovery from the Great Depression, but America didn’t grow dramatically faster during the NATO era than it did before that. The U.S. is rich because its been one of the richest countries in the world since the 18th century and has been extraordinarily stable. It was considerably richer than western Europe even going into the 20th century: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Population-GDP-and-GDP-per-capita-1900-2030-selected-countries-and-the-world-GDP-per_tbl1_228999174 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Population-GDP-and-GDP-p.... In 1900, U.S. gdp per capita was almost 50% higher than western europe. In 1990, it was also about 50%. There was a temporary period right after the war when the U.S. was much richer than western europe, but europe actually grew faster during this 1950-1990 period.
    - fatbird 9mo ago
- apawloski 9mo ago
  For somebody so concerned about China, how can you be so naive about the consequences of isolating America on the global stage? Actively destroying our alliances is an unforced error. How do you see our military working without the global logistical networks required to project US power?
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]

The irony of Make America Great Again speed running the exact opposite.

by cdrnsf 9mo ago

The irony of Make America Great Again speed running the exact opposite.

kccoder 9mo ago

More often than not the opposite of what Trump says is closer to the truth.

rayiner 9mo ago

[flagged]

surgical_fire 9mo ago
At the expense of alliance and trade with the whole of EU? And damaged relations for the foreseeable future? I am not from the US. If I was I wouldn't be very thrilled for it, no.
- dvfjsdhgfv 9mo ago
  Not just the EU. The USA has no more allies and is not perceived as a reliable partner at any level. Sure, officially they will shake hands and say whatever is needed but in the meantime new partnerships are being created because in this chaotic world stability has a big value.
  - surgical_fire 9mo ago
    Yes, and I am fine with that. I live in the EU, and I think it will actually be very positive in the medium to long term that the EU sheds its dependency on the US and starts treating it for what it is - a hostile foreign nation. The Mercosur trade agreement, for example, is something great that came out of this. Trump finally pushed the EU to look for good partnerships elsewhere. So, in a sense, this whole bullshit with Greenland may have positive outcomes still. I am hoping that the EU uses the anti-coercion instrument against the US and their companies.
    - coumbaya 9mo ago
      The mercosur being great I'm not so sure... Yeah let's import a lot of agricultural products that can use banned chemicals why our farmers can't and so can't compete, just so that Geemany can export a few cars...
      - surgical_fire 9mo ago
        That's not what the deal is.
palata 9mo ago
> But you have to admit it would be an objective win for America in terms of increasing its own resources. Quite obviously. Just like robbing a bank is an objective win in terms of increasing one's own money. But maybe not in terms of not going to jail.
fatbird 9mo ago
What America got, by being the heavyweight in NATO, was the greatest economy the world has ever seen. America got rich by selling Europe a nuclear umbrella, which kept the peace, and let Europe go cheap on defense and long on developing their own economies in tandem. The USD as global reserve currency means the world loans money to the US at the lowest possible interest rate; the US extended that credit to its businesses and education system and infrastructure. What America loses by gaining Greenland is that worldwide market and those close defense relationships forming a common bloc. The US dollar stops being the reserve currency; America's cheap credit line dries up. American soft power in Europe is gone, and Europe aligns itself with China or Russia for stability, and becomes an American adversary. All so you can have, what, a bunch of melting glaciers?
- rayiner 9mo ago
  > What America got, by being the heavyweight in NATO, was the greatest economy the world has ever seen. America got rich by selling Europe a nuclear umbrella But this just isn’t true! The U.S. overtook the UK in per capita GDP in 1880, near the peak of the British Empire: https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/us-gdp-per-capita https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/us-gdp-per-cap.... At that point the UK was already significantly richer than the rest of europe. If you look at GDP growth rate, the US has consistently averaged 1.7% GDP per capita growth over the past 200 years. The mass industrialization during the war itself spike growth and helped recovery from the Great Depression, but America didn’t grow dramatically faster during the NATO era than it did before that. The U.S. is rich because its been one of the richest countries in the world since the 18th century and has been extraordinarily stable. It was considerably richer than western Europe even going into the 20th century: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Population-GDP-and-GDP-per-capita-1900-2030-selected-countries-and-the-world-GDP-per_tbl1_228999174 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Population-GDP-and-GDP-p.... In 1900, U.S. gdp per capita was almost 50% higher than western europe. In 1990, it was also about 50%. There was a temporary period right after the war when the U.S. was much richer than western europe, but europe actually grew faster during this 1950-1990 period.
  - fatbird 9mo ago
apawloski 9mo ago
For somebody so concerned about China, how can you be so naive about the consequences of isolating America on the global stage? Actively destroying our alliances is an unforced error. How do you see our military working without the global logistical networks required to project US power?

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]