User Controls
American hegemony.
-
2018-10-16 at 8:56 AM UTC
-
2018-10-16 at 8:57 AM UTC
-
2018-10-16 at 9 AM UTC
-
2018-10-16 at 9:02 AM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie Way to wheel out the old projector there Rizzo.
you have no fucking arguments. emerging markets? you don't want our bases? okay buddy. buy energy from russia, get out of NATO. you fucking fags don't even pay your upkeep. do you think we really want to keep it up? Poland is literally begging us to make a FORT TRUMP to keep off the Ruskies, Trump is kind of down but honestly the general feeling is why. Why the fuck are we doing any of this. We don't even need afghanistan for heroin, mexico has our back there. oil is covered.
yeah, we will be leaving you guys the fuck alone soon. I hope you enjoy it. -
2018-10-16 at 9:06 AM UTC
Originally posted by Rizzo in a box you have no fucking arguments. emerging markets? you don't want our bases? okay buddy. buy energy from russia, get out of NATO. you fucking fags don't even pay your upkeep. do you think we really want to keep it up? Poland is literally begging us to make a FORT TRUMP to keep off the Ruskies, Trump is kind of down but honestly the general feeling is why. Why the fuck are we doing any of this. We don't even need afghanistan for heroin, mexico has our back there. oil is covered.
yeah, we will be leaving you guys the fuck alone soon. I hope you enjoy it.
It's a good deal America will be energy independent. I bet that will solve a lot of issues, on the real. Poland is gay btw. -
2018-10-16 at 9:07 AM UTCeurope is so fucked geopolitically if america just fucks off and leaves NATO in ashes. none of you fags can agree with eachother, the EU is a sham. it will get ugly really fast, and it is going to h appen and you will make money by investing in america
-
2018-10-16 at 9:08 AM UTC
-
2018-10-16 at 9:08 AM UTC
Originally posted by Rizzo in a box europe is so fucked geopolitically if america just fucks off and leaves NATO in ashes. none of you fags can agree with eachother, the EU is a sham. it will get ugly really fast, and it is going to h appen and you will make money by investing in america
Please leave and we'll test that theory. No one in the EU actually even wants the EU. And literal war is out of the question since everyone has nukes anyway, even if we don't on paper. -
2018-10-16 at 9:16 AM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie Please leave and we'll test that theory. No one in the EU actually even wants the EU. And literal war is out of the question since everyone has nukes anyway, even if we don't on paper.
once again i have to question if you are even european and if so what shithole country are you from? there are certainly countries in the EU that very much like the way things are run, like germany and france. honestly outside of the UK, france, and germany the rest of europe is basically a third world country. who the fuck has nukes? okay shut the fuck up. -
2018-10-16 at 11:03 AM UTCnot sure if rizzo is retarded or trolling
assuming both -
2018-10-16 at 11:09 AM UTC
-
2018-10-16 at 11:36 AM UTCSophie - your position is far more idealistic than practical.
I recommend reading this article, which more or less talks about how many would like to see the the US empire implode but presently have far too much to lose to ever let it happen.
The argument is that an empire allows for a somewhat 'level playing field' among actors; ie. even though local governments and corporations have no real sense of sovereignty and have to deal with the empire's intrinsic corruption, extortion and racketeering, they have security and the ability to safely profit. The aforementioned negatives are treated as a cost of doing business.
That aside, the US' current situation is untenable. In short, dominance rests on three pegs - control of the world financial system (including maintaining the Dollar as the world's sole reserve currency as well as power-broking structures such as the IMF), control of the petrol economy and the US military.
All three pegs are under siege:
The US itself undermines the reserve status of the dollar by weaponising it against states such as Russia and Iran at a point when many countries are already seeking to reduce dollar-denominated trade. The IMF and similar institutions meant to enforce austerity via loans that can never realistically be repaid are being challenged by new (largely Asian) institutions.
The petrodollar itself is being propped up on vapours with longstanding producers such as Saudi Arabia's wells being past peak production and US Hydraulic Fracturing being a ponzi scheme. What's more, Trump is trying to use threats against 'allies' to lower oil prices while simultaneously reducing competition by attempting to force Iran out of the market.
The US military is still dominant worldwide due to it's sheer size and the existing logistics network of US bases, but it's ability to deliver 'victory' is highly questionable. Fundamentally a large part of the reason it's failed to solve conflicts in places like Iraq and Afghanistan are because the government is attempting to use the military to solve political problems, but the more salient internal issue is military contractors being far more concerned with profits than delivering effective equipment - see the absurd cost blowouts of the F35 and Zumwalt programs as well as their complete inability to deliver. Add to that the fact that Russian (and hence Chinese) missile technology is several generations ahead and has the ability to neutralise the entire concept of a surface fleet and you can start to calculate how much of the US 'defence' budget actually contributes to 'warfighting' ability vs. that which is misspent or simply sucked up by defence contractors.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-10-16 at 11:40 AM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny i hate to say it but china is caving in under the pressure of the trade war.
How so? Neither side wins but from what I gather they have less to lose, especially given how much they're trying to diversify at the moment. There's far more they could be doing if they felt threatened, and I read recently they're signaling they're likely to start dumping US Treasury bonds soon -
2018-10-16 at 11:47 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra but it's ability to deliver 'victory' is highly questionable. Fundamentally a large part of the reason it's failed to solve conflicts in places like Iraq and Afghanistan are because the government is attempting to use the military to solve political problems,
the thing is that america doesnt have to win at conflicts to prevail, merely having the ability to sustain more loses thanks to their infinite wealth in material and manpower is enough to ensure their dominamce. -
2018-10-16 at 2:09 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra Sophie - your position is far more idealistic than practical.
I recommend reading this article, which more or less talks about how many would like to see the the US empire implode but presently have far too much to lose to ever let it happen.
The argument is that an empire allows for a somewhat 'level playing field' among actors; ie. even though local governments and corporations have no real sense of sovereignty and have to deal with the empire's intrinsic corruption, extortion and racketeering, they have security and the ability to safely profit. The aforementioned negatives are treated as a cost of doing business.
That aside, the US' current situation is untenable. In short, dominance rests on three pegs - control of the world financial system (including maintaining the Dollar as the world's sole reserve currency as well as power-broking structures such as the IMF), control of the petrol economy and the US military.
All three pegs are under siege:
The US itself undermines the reserve status of the dollar by weaponising it against states such as Russia and Iran at a point when many countries are already seeking to reduce dollar-denominated trade. The IMF and similar institutions meant to enforce austerity via loans that can never realistically be repaid are being challenged by new (largely Asian) institutions.
The petrodollar itself is being propped up on vapours with longstanding producers such as Saudi Arabia's wells being past peak production and US Hydraulic Fracturing being a ponzi scheme. What's more, Trump is trying to use threats against 'allies' to lower oil prices while simultaneously reducing competition by attempting to force Iran out of the market.
The US military is still dominant worldwide due to it's sheer size and the existing logistics network of US bases, but it's ability to deliver 'victory' is highly questionable. Fundamentally a large part of the reason it's failed to solve conflicts in places like Iraq and Afghanistan are because the government is attempting to use the military to solve political problems, but the more salient internal issue is military contractors being far more concerned with profits than delivering effective equipment - see the absurd cost blowouts of the F35 and Zumwalt programs as well as their complete inability to deliver. Add to that the fact that Russian (and hence Chinese) missile technology is several generations ahead and has the ability to neutralise the entire concept of a surface fleet and you can start to calculate how much of the US 'defence' budget actually contributes to 'warfighting' ability vs. that which is misspent or simply sucked up by defence contractors.
Thank you aldra for the keen insight into the geo-political facts of the matter. As always. And while it's true my position is more ideological than anything the fact remains that America is an evil empire and i'll laugh as it implodes even if it means i'm going down with it. -
2018-10-16 at 6:31 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra How so? Neither side wins but from what I gather they have less to lose, especially given how much they're trying to diversify at the moment. There's far more they could be doing if they felt threatened, and I read recently they're signaling they're likely to start dumping US Treasury bonds soon
depends on what and how you define 'lose'. america is their biggest market and the by far the most profitable one. losing that market would mean a significant number of their product would have no where to go.
factories would close down, people would be jobless and jobless people will get hungry, and thats where the real danger starts.
the reason they're dumping us treasury bond could be because they needed the money to fund internal growth. they might even have started dumping them already which is why treasury bond's interest rate has been increasing lately.
and they just told their banks to lend out more. -
2018-10-17 at 5:21 AM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie Thank you aldra for the keen insight into the geo-political facts of the matter. As always. And while it's true my position is more ideological than anything the fact remains that America is an evil empire and i'll laugh as it implodes even if it means i'm going down with it.
Oh I don't disagree; I'd like to see it all burn too, fuck the consequences. It should have already but people with vested interests have been trying to stave it off for the last decade or so, but they won't be able to hold it off forever. A system that relies on endless growth and expansion is going to hit the wall sooner or later. -
2018-10-17 at 5:37 AM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny depends on what and how you define 'lose'. america is their biggest market and the by far the most profitable one. losing that market would mean a significant number of their product would have no where to go.
factories would close down, people would be jobless and jobless people will get hungry, and thats where the real danger starts.
the reason they're dumping us treasury bond could be because they needed the money to fund internal growth. they might even have started dumping them already which is why treasury bond's interest rate has been increasing lately.
and they just told their banks to lend out more.
Assuming neither side gives in - yes, it'll definitely force the country into hard times, but up until Mao's 'great leap forward' China faced 1-2 large-scale famines a year. The majority of the middle-class there were only 'lifted' out of poverty within the last decade; they're no stranger to it.
Poverty will go up and infrastructure will begin to decay, but given time they'll be able to diversify enough to mitigate the loss of the US market (of course depending on whether their BRI paths succeed or are blocked and whether they're ultimately able to export large-scale to the EU) - in short, it will be bad for the people, but it won't be crushing because they have difficult alternatives and it's unlikely to significantly change the way they operate.
The US on the other hand relies on cheap Chinese imports for much of their 'high tech' industry (as well as most other industries, but high-tech is the most prominent given virtually every electronic device is an amalgamation of components fabricated in China) - the argument is that Trump is forcing US companies to stop outsourcing the supply chain and 'return jobs to the US', but the associated labour costs would blow out production costs to an absurd degree, to the point where nobody would be able to afford to buy their products even if they wanted to. Entire segments of the economy would be completely impossible to turn a profit in, and the US would have to rethink the entire basis of its existence - without leverage it no longer has, there is no way for a country with such high costs of labour (living standards, essentially) to compete with a country with incredibly low (and artificially lowered) labour costs. -
2018-10-17 at 6:12 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra Assuming neither side gives in - yes, it'll definitely force the country into hard times, but up until Mao's 'great leap forward' China faced 1-2 large-scale famines a year. The majority of the middle-class there were only 'lifted' out of poverty within the last decade; they're no stranger to it.
no, those were the people from 1 or2 generations ago. china does have its own millenials.
do not confuse the ability to endure with the willingness to endure.Poverty will go up and infrastructure will begin to decay, but given time they'll be able to diversify enough to mitigate the loss of the US market
where do you think they'll diversify ? the good markets seems to be almost saturated.
one of the thing that scares me is that the best way to create jobs without fucking up the consumer-based economy is by spurring the growth of armament industries.The US on the other hand relies on cheap Chinese imports for much of their 'high tech' industry (as well as most other industries, but high-tech is the most prominent given virtually every electronic device is an amalgamation of components fabricated in China) - the argument is that Trump is forcing US companies to stop outsourcing the supply chain and 'return jobs to the US', but the associated labour costs would blow out production costs to an absurd degree, to the point where nobody would be able to afford to buy their products even if they wanted to. Entire segments of the economy would be completely impossible to turn a profit in, and the US would have to rethink the entire basis of its existence - without leverage it no longer has, there is no way for a country with such high costs of labour (living standards, essentially) to compete with a country with incredibly low (and artificially lowered) labour costs.
well the trade war might eventually trigger more investment into the field of AI and automation on a scale that has never been seen before because the cost/benefit was never in its favor before the trade war,
and the US might actually succeed and ended up not needing sweatshop workers and 3rd world countries at all. -
2018-10-20 at 8:16 AM UTCSo much anti-American sentiment in this thread, and you call me retarded - this is a threat to the national security of the United States. A contract has been hatched and your seal was duly noted.
First aldra says I'm retarded or trolling and then he repeats the same basic facts but in an anti-American light. Well why don't we look over some of this, and take the time to shit on dumb euro fags like Sophie (nuke europe). And if you just say everything I'm saying is trolling maybe you should learn to discern humor from actual facts.The argument is that an empire allows for a somewhat 'level playing field' among actors; ie. even though local governments and corporations have no real sense of sovereignty and have to deal with the empire's intrinsic corruption, extortion and racketeering, they have security and the ability to safely profit. The aforementioned negatives are treated as a cost of doing business.
Not only that, but you have also to take into account the Post WWII-Soviet Collapse period. America made major economic concessions in order to maintain an anti-communist bloc. The American free trade empire has certainly allowed people to become rich, BRICS could never even exist without America.That aside, the US' current situation is untenable. In short, dominance rests on three pegs - control of the world financial system (including maintaining the Dollar as the world's sole reserve currency as well as power-broking structures such as the IMF), control of the petrol economy and the US military.
You're right again there, too, the current situation can not last (we are already in flux), so you have understanding. So let's get to the conclusions.The US itself undermines the reserve status of the dollar by weaponising it against states such as Russia and Iran at a point when many countries are already seeking to reduce dollar-denominated trade. The IMF and similar institutions meant to enforce austerity via loans that can never realistically be repaid are being challenged by new (largely Asian) institutions.
The economic system the United States set up was always primarily a political tool first and an economic tool second. Weaponizing the dollar has been the situation for decades.
The petrodollar itself is being propped up on vapours with longstanding producers such as Saudi Arabia's wells being past peak production and US Hydraulic Fracturing being a ponzi scheme. What's more, Trump is trying to use threats against 'allies' to lower oil prices while simultaneously reducing competition by attempting to force Iran out of the market.
Yes, the petrodollar as we know it is dead. America is positioning itself to still control as much energy as possible. I don't know why you think fracking is a ponzi scheme, maybe you have some information I don't. What do you think about natural gas?The US military is still dominant worldwide due to it's sheer size and the existing logistics network of US bases, but it's ability to deliver 'victory' is highly questionable. Fundamentally a large part of the reason it's failed to solve conflicts in places like Iraq and Afghanistan are because the government is attempting to use the military to solve political problems, but the more salient internal issue is military contractors being far more concerned with profits than delivering effective equipment - see the absurd cost blowouts of the F35 and Zumwalt programs as well as their complete inability to deliver. Add to that the fact that Russian (and hence Chinese) missile technology is several generations ahead and has the ability to neutralise the entire concept of a surface fleet and you can start to calculate how much of the US 'defence' budget actually contributes to 'warfighting' ability vs. that which is misspent or simply sucked up by defence contractors.
Sorry, you're very much underestimating the force of the US military against global powers by looking at things like Afghanistan (or even Vietnam) where we really did not have proper goals or political will behind us. China and Russia are trying really, really hard but they can not replicate the power of the US Navy to keep the seas safe, not for many decades at the least. IF everything goes peachy keen for China and Russia, which it won't.How so? Neither side wins but from what I gather they have less to lose, especially given how much they're trying to diversify at the moment. There's far more they could be doing if they felt threatened, and I read recently they're signaling they're likely to start dumping US Treasury bonds soon
And just like that I stopped thinking you knew a god damn thing you were talking about. China is incredibly dependent on exports to prop up their fake economy, America's economy is like, what, 8% fucking exports? America is the largest, richest consumer market in the world. Everyone wants to sell to us and many countries could not survive without market access to us (China, Mexico, other shitholes). China is already running out of American exports to levy tariffs on in retaliation. They will fold long before we do.
Look guys, America created this modern world. America is its master. China is not going to take over, India is not taking over. You are stuck with us. Or even worse, we might stop paying attention to you.
