7 ms·

> the US has “abdicated its longstanding role as a leader in global health and humanitarian response.” It’s interesting to note that in the end, there was no o

by arjie 5mo ago

> the US has “abdicated its longstanding role as a leader in global health and humanitarian response.” It’s interesting to note that in the end, there was no one else coming: we were it. A large amount of disease containment and control was just fronted by the United States. As the US declines, it’s not that a new leader will come in. It’s not that the Chinese century will have their massive industrial engine put to the tasks that America put hers to. It’s just that things won’t get done. Sobering, really, that despite all the ascendance of new powers (who do not yet share the norms) and the noble aims of the old (who are too weak), one year after the US left no one has filled the gap.

hedora 5mo ago
I think you are reading the situation incorrectly. The US was previously the center of international collaboration for science and technology, and that took decades to establish. The organization has been burnt down in 12 months, but the expertise still exists. There are signs that the international community will finally start working on climate change now that the US has pulled out of the treaties. The Chinese are a decade ahead of the west when it comes to building cars. The WHO admits they screwed this outbreak handling up badly, but, by my understanding, they screwed up less than the US did in Wuhan in 2019, and they’re exhibiting the will to improve instead of shifting blame (remember all the “investigations” of the Chinese biological weapons research programs that were co-funded and co-operated by the US with federal funds?) I think we’re going to see some more dark years before a one-two punch that improves things dramatically: 1) international organizations step up to fill the vacuum the US left 2) After the 2026-2028 new Dust Bowl / Great Depression the US is heading into, voters (state and federal) in the US are going to demand progressive and populist candidates that will actually attempt to put the US back on competitive economic footing.
- pjot 5mo ago
  > The Chinese are a decade ahead of the west when it comes to building cars. Is this true? From years of watching Top Gear any Chinese car that was tested was laughably bad.
  - m-s-y 5mo ago
    For EVs, yes, absolutely
    - somenameforme 5mo ago
      Yip, outside the US BYD cars are absolutely everywhere, pretty awesome cars, and crazy cheap - like < $15k. Apparently < $10k within China itself.
      - ShinyLeftPad 5mo ago
        The price is not the important part, it basically doesn't matter. On top of subsidies and government policy aiming to undermine manufacturing in EU and elsewhere, domestic consumption in PRC is laughably low and government policies act to transfer wealth from households to manufacturing. Locals won't buy the supply, PRC literally has to get these cars somewhere or trash them. Now if those cars are actually good, price independent, then that would be worth mentioning.
        dirtbagskier 5mo ago
        [dead]
        iamthemonster 5mo ago
        Do you have any references for your statements? The majority of car sales in China are EVs (which is more than the UK, the EU and the US) so locals are buying the supply right now. Reference: https://ourworldindata.org/electric-car-sales https://ourworldindata.org/electric-car-sales
        ShinyLeftPad 5mo ago
        Sure. China domestic consumption is laughably low: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_household_final_consumption_expenditure_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_household... (lower than Kosovo, Sri Lanka, lower than world average) https://bst-europe.eu/economy-security-trade/more-and-more-why-chinese-overcapacities-are-a-significant-challenge-for-the-eu/ https://bst-europe.eu/economy-security-trade/more-and-more-w... Locals won't buy EV supply: https://asia.nikkei.com/business/automobiles/china-s-domestic-car-demand-stays-weak-but-exports-strengthen https://asia.nikkei.com/business/automobiles/china-s-domesti... https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2023-china-ev-graveyards/ https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2023-china-ev-graveyards/
- WarmWash 5mo ago
  Trump is the populist candidate elected to put the US back on competitive economic footing. His economic policy has way more overlap with Bernie's than people tend to understand. Both believe immigration lowers wages, and both believe tariffs are imperative (you have to dig back to pre-2017 talk from Bernie, he changed his website/talking points after Trump won). Edit: People struggle so hard with politics because everyone is totally blinded by there side. Here are populist things Trump has done/trying to do - remove taxes on tips - implement tariffs on foreign goods - implement strict immigration policy (note sanders wanted a pathway to citizenship, he did not want an open border, and he never addressed how he would handle millions showing up at the border) - block corporate landlords from single family home ownership - create a government funded college level education program to get free bachelor degrees. - take government ownership stake in large American companies (us steel, intel) - cap interest rates on credit cards - lower central bank interest rates - de-criminalizing drugs, reschedule marijuana - pro crypto - pro prediction markets Guys, you can hate Trump, you can accurately access he isn't intelligent or competent, criticize his brutish approach, but if you cannot recognize he is a populist, you are objectively lost-in-the-sauce.
  - Groxx 5mo ago
    I sorta doubt Bernie would've been causing the insane tariff chaos that Trump is constantly doing. How it's done matters immensely.
    - WarmWash 5mo ago
      You are right, but competent populist or incompetent populist is still populist.
  - throwaway5752 5mo ago
    You're finding somethere where nothing exists on the basis of semantics. Donald Trump is not a populist and he stated economic policy is simply "stated". Society just has become so trusting that someone can go about bald-faced lying about their beliefs and actions, while doing the opposite, without consequence. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are on polar opposite ends of ideologies. Bernie Sanders has a lifetime record of integrity, working to fairly distribute wealth, and good and transparent governance. Donald Trump has a lifetime record of bankruptcies, fraud convictions, lying about his policies for the working while governing for the richest people, using government to enrich himself, and using government to hide his misdeeds and shield himself and his business partners from accountability. Donald Trump says he is many things he is not, and simply believing the words that come out of his mouth is being gullible. I am not even a Bernie Sanders supporter.
- epgui 5mo ago
  > The WHO admits they screwed this outbreak handling up badly Uhhh no? How did they screw up? They were notified late, and then they did what they were supposed to do.
SecretDreams 5mo ago
> Sobering, really, that despite all the ascendance of new powers (who do not yet share the norms) and the noble aims of the old (who are too weak), one year after the US left no one has filled the gap. One year isn't a lot of time to fill a gap that was previously filled by decades of hard work. Maybe if the US had had a transition plan, other competent and capable countries could have better filled the gap.
gchamonlive 5mo ago
Yet it isn't fair to people that rely on such assistance to drop it without a plan to substitute the assistance provider. It was all done overnight. One day you had outposts serving people in need, the other they had their doors closed. So don't act like the world should be thankful for all the US has done when it pulls the plug in such a way that is maybe more devastating than having done nothing, because at least nothing would have left the spot for someone else to have risen to the occasion. Maybe this time though without using people's basic needs to create a political tool to be used opportunitistically.
- adventured 5mo ago
  The world has never been thankful for the positive things the US has done. The only thing it ever garnered were the briefest of superficial nods. China gets drastically more respect with their approach than the US ever has, while doing a tiny fraction of the good. The US saved tens of millions of Russians from starvation a century ago. Culturally they have absolutely no clue about that, they're entirely oblivious in terms of their own history. The good deeds never garnered the US any positive credit. Only the bad deeds garner the US bad credit aplenty.
  - slg 5mo ago
    You do good things because they are good, not to be thanked. It's so bizarre to frame saving lives as something that requires reciprocation. I want my country to pay for these programs because they save lives and my country is rich enough to afford it. The way people talk about this stuff so amorally is incredibly off-putting.
    - jbm 5mo ago
      The idea that people did not thank the US is laughable. I have literally met Japanese people who have been thankful to the US for dropping nukes on them while pissing themselves about North Korea having missiles. The difference is that they perceived the US as an enlightened hegemony, and this is in part because of the relative pennies spent on Africa. Incidentally, There is an animated series called Gasaraki with an endearingly simplistic and worshipful view of the US that aligns with how they viewed the US, especially at the end. Good luck with AI hunter killers replacing good will.
aorloff 5mo ago
You are discounting the notion that other powers have something to gain by letting the US own this fuckup a bit more before reacting
- spwa4 5mo ago
  And you are discounting the notion that most of those other powers existed before the US. China did. Europe did. Ottoman empire/islam did. They didn't help. Where are the signs they've changed?
hiddencost 5mo ago
I can't get my roof replaced in less than a year. These things take time .
greatgib 5mo ago
China is there when there is money to make or resources to grab, but in the last decades never helped any one else than themselves.
dyauspitr 5mo ago
The US was a force for good in the world. There may be a million counterpoints but contemporary American was and still barely is a massive win for the world.
yapyap 5mo ago
Lol. The old system recognized that you need an alive world to exploit, financially and through debt. The new system is hoping to rule through raw power because it’s being ran by shortsighted idiots who do not recognize they are standing on the shoulders of more tactical rulers. Neither of them noble.
lr1970 5mo ago
> As the US declines, it’s not that a new leader will come in. What's about EU? EU is bigger than the USA in total population and it has comparable if not larger total GDP. Why did not they step in where USA failed?
- maldev 5mo ago
  The US has about a 50% higher gdp, while having 30% less population. Not only this, but the EU can barely fund it's military obligations, let alone others. You frame it as the US failing, but I think it's more the US winning since they didn't really lose anything. I would argue they gained, since now the EU and it's competitors are having to spend money to solve things like this, and the EU and Asia are far closer to Ebola outbreaks and spreading due to population movements than the US is. Why should the US fund some people in Africa who can't control the outbreak of a very easily contained disease, instead of it's own people.
  - bigyabai 5mo ago
    > the EU can barely fund it's military obligations The EU funds it's military just fine. You're upset because of the EU's obligations, which are non-binding and demanded by the US (who isn't in the EU). > Why should the US fund some people in Africa Because it's cheap, and the knock-on effects save American lives? It worked during the last Ebola outbreak, why do you think it would stop working now?

by arjie 5mo ago

hedora 5mo ago

I think you are reading the situation incorrectly. The US was previously the center of international collaboration for science and technology, and that took decades to establish. The organization has been burnt down in 12 months, but the expertise still exists. There are signs that the international community will finally start working on climate change now that the US has pulled out of the treaties. The Chinese are a decade ahead of the west when it comes to building cars. The WHO admits they screwed this outbreak handling up badly, but, by my understanding, they screwed up less than the US did in Wuhan in 2019, and they’re exhibiting the will to improve instead of shifting blame (remember all the “investigations” of the Chinese biological weapons research programs that were co-funded and co-operated by the US with federal funds?) I think we’re going to see some more dark years before a one-two punch that improves things dramatically: 1) international organizations step up to fill the vacuum the US left 2) After the 2026-2028 new Dust Bowl / Great Depression the US is heading into, voters (state and federal) in the US are going to demand progressive and populist candidates that will actually attempt to put the US back on competitive economic footing.

pjot 5mo ago
> The Chinese are a decade ahead of the west when it comes to building cars. Is this true? From years of watching Top Gear any Chinese car that was tested was laughably bad.
- m-s-y 5mo ago
  For EVs, yes, absolutely
  - somenameforme 5mo ago
    Yip, outside the US BYD cars are absolutely everywhere, pretty awesome cars, and crazy cheap - like < $15k. Apparently < $10k within China itself.
    - ShinyLeftPad 5mo ago
      The price is not the important part, it basically doesn't matter. On top of subsidies and government policy aiming to undermine manufacturing in EU and elsewhere, domestic consumption in PRC is laughably low and government policies act to transfer wealth from households to manufacturing. Locals won't buy the supply, PRC literally has to get these cars somewhere or trash them. Now if those cars are actually good, price independent, then that would be worth mentioning.
      - dirtbagskier 5mo ago
        [dead]
      - iamthemonster 5mo ago
        Do you have any references for your statements? The majority of car sales in China are EVs (which is more than the UK, the EU and the US) so locals are buying the supply right now. Reference: https://ourworldindata.org/electric-car-sales https://ourworldindata.org/electric-car-sales
        ShinyLeftPad 5mo ago
        Sure. China domestic consumption is laughably low: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_household_final_consumption_expenditure_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_household... (lower than Kosovo, Sri Lanka, lower than world average) https://bst-europe.eu/economy-security-trade/more-and-more-why-chinese-overcapacities-are-a-significant-challenge-for-the-eu/ https://bst-europe.eu/economy-security-trade/more-and-more-w... Locals won't buy EV supply: https://asia.nikkei.com/business/automobiles/china-s-domestic-car-demand-stays-weak-but-exports-strengthen https://asia.nikkei.com/business/automobiles/china-s-domesti... https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2023-china-ev-graveyards/ https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2023-china-ev-graveyards/
WarmWash 5mo ago
Trump is the populist candidate elected to put the US back on competitive economic footing. His economic policy has way more overlap with Bernie's than people tend to understand. Both believe immigration lowers wages, and both believe tariffs are imperative (you have to dig back to pre-2017 talk from Bernie, he changed his website/talking points after Trump won). Edit: People struggle so hard with politics because everyone is totally blinded by there side. Here are populist things Trump has done/trying to do - remove taxes on tips - implement tariffs on foreign goods - implement strict immigration policy (note sanders wanted a pathway to citizenship, he did not want an open border, and he never addressed how he would handle millions showing up at the border) - block corporate landlords from single family home ownership - create a government funded college level education program to get free bachelor degrees. - take government ownership stake in large American companies (us steel, intel) - cap interest rates on credit cards - lower central bank interest rates - de-criminalizing drugs, reschedule marijuana - pro crypto - pro prediction markets Guys, you can hate Trump, you can accurately access he isn't intelligent or competent, criticize his brutish approach, but if you cannot recognize he is a populist, you are objectively lost-in-the-sauce.
- Groxx 5mo ago
  I sorta doubt Bernie would've been causing the insane tariff chaos that Trump is constantly doing. How it's done matters immensely.
  - WarmWash 5mo ago
    You are right, but competent populist or incompetent populist is still populist.
- throwaway5752 5mo ago
  You're finding somethere where nothing exists on the basis of semantics. Donald Trump is not a populist and he stated economic policy is simply "stated". Society just has become so trusting that someone can go about bald-faced lying about their beliefs and actions, while doing the opposite, without consequence. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are on polar opposite ends of ideologies. Bernie Sanders has a lifetime record of integrity, working to fairly distribute wealth, and good and transparent governance. Donald Trump has a lifetime record of bankruptcies, fraud convictions, lying about his policies for the working while governing for the richest people, using government to enrich himself, and using government to hide his misdeeds and shield himself and his business partners from accountability. Donald Trump says he is many things he is not, and simply believing the words that come out of his mouth is being gullible. I am not even a Bernie Sanders supporter.
epgui 5mo ago
> The WHO admits they screwed this outbreak handling up badly Uhhh no? How did they screw up? They were notified late, and then they did what they were supposed to do.

SecretDreams 5mo ago

> Sobering, really, that despite all the ascendance of new powers (who do not yet share the norms) and the noble aims of the old (who are too weak), one year after the US left no one has filled the gap. One year isn't a lot of time to fill a gap that was previously filled by decades of hard work. Maybe if the US had had a transition plan, other competent and capable countries could have better filled the gap.

gchamonlive 5mo ago

Yet it isn't fair to people that rely on such assistance to drop it without a plan to substitute the assistance provider. It was all done overnight. One day you had outposts serving people in need, the other they had their doors closed. So don't act like the world should be thankful for all the US has done when it pulls the plug in such a way that is maybe more devastating than having done nothing, because at least nothing would have left the spot for someone else to have risen to the occasion. Maybe this time though without using people's basic needs to create a political tool to be used opportunitistically.

adventured 5mo ago
The world has never been thankful for the positive things the US has done. The only thing it ever garnered were the briefest of superficial nods. China gets drastically more respect with their approach than the US ever has, while doing a tiny fraction of the good. The US saved tens of millions of Russians from starvation a century ago. Culturally they have absolutely no clue about that, they're entirely oblivious in terms of their own history. The good deeds never garnered the US any positive credit. Only the bad deeds garner the US bad credit aplenty.
- slg 5mo ago
  You do good things because they are good, not to be thanked. It's so bizarre to frame saving lives as something that requires reciprocation. I want my country to pay for these programs because they save lives and my country is rich enough to afford it. The way people talk about this stuff so amorally is incredibly off-putting.
  - jbm 5mo ago
    The idea that people did not thank the US is laughable. I have literally met Japanese people who have been thankful to the US for dropping nukes on them while pissing themselves about North Korea having missiles. The difference is that they perceived the US as an enlightened hegemony, and this is in part because of the relative pennies spent on Africa. Incidentally, There is an animated series called Gasaraki with an endearingly simplistic and worshipful view of the US that aligns with how they viewed the US, especially at the end. Good luck with AI hunter killers replacing good will.

aorloff 5mo ago

You are discounting the notion that other powers have something to gain by letting the US own this fuckup a bit more before reacting

spwa4 5mo ago
And you are discounting the notion that most of those other powers existed before the US. China did. Europe did. Ottoman empire/islam did. They didn't help. Where are the signs they've changed?

hiddencost 5mo ago

I can't get my roof replaced in less than a year. These things take time .

greatgib 5mo ago

China is there when there is money to make or resources to grab, but in the last decades never helped any one else than themselves.

dyauspitr 5mo ago

The US was a force for good in the world. There may be a million counterpoints but contemporary American was and still barely is a massive win for the world.

yapyap 5mo ago

Lol. The old system recognized that you need an alive world to exploit, financially and through debt. The new system is hoping to rule through raw power because it’s being ran by shortsighted idiots who do not recognize they are standing on the shoulders of more tactical rulers. Neither of them noble.

lr1970 5mo ago

> As the US declines, it’s not that a new leader will come in. What's about EU? EU is bigger than the USA in total population and it has comparable if not larger total GDP. Why did not they step in where USA failed?

maldev 5mo ago
The US has about a 50% higher gdp, while having 30% less population. Not only this, but the EU can barely fund it's military obligations, let alone others. You frame it as the US failing, but I think it's more the US winning since they didn't really lose anything. I would argue they gained, since now the EU and it's competitors are having to spend money to solve things like this, and the EU and Asia are far closer to Ebola outbreaks and spreading due to population movements than the US is. Why should the US fund some people in Africa who can't control the outbreak of a very easily contained disease, instead of it's own people.
- bigyabai 5mo ago
  > the EU can barely fund it's military obligations The EU funds it's military just fine. You're upset because of the EU's obligations, which are non-binding and demanded by the US (who isn't in the EU). > Why should the US fund some people in Africa Because it's cheap, and the knock-on effects save American lives? It worked during the last Ebola outbreak, why do you think it would stop working now?