This is why I think you're seriously better off getting Trump for another 4 years than some appeasement from Biden that very likely had the effect of diminishing the start of this fire.

Edit: in the long run obviously. In the short run it's shooting yourself in the foot.

@Baden

I have a theory that you can drop your prized line about how euro-rightists are to the left of American leftists. That's not true.

Ideologically, we're pretty similar. In the concrete, Europe is further left because they havent been paying for their own defense. That makes funds available for social welfare.

Biden will advocate continuing to defend Europe. Trump would not. So sure, support Trump.

I may be wrong.

I have a theory that you can drop your prized line about how euro-rightists are to the left of American leftists. That's not true.

Ideologically, we're pretty similar. In the concrete, Europe is further left because they havent been paying for their own defense. That makes funds available for social welfare.

Biden will advocate continuing to defend Europe. Trump would not. So sure, support Trump. — frank

This is very mixed up.

I may be wrong. — frank

You're not even wrong.

:cool:

1) The American "left", if you mean the Dems, are about where the British conservative party are except on healthcare where they are to the right of the Tories.
2) Europe is not further left of the US just because some of it is in NATO. There are important cultural issues there.
3) I don't support Trump.
4) Europe ought to organize its own defence and move away from the US.

Europe is not further left of the US just because some of it is in NATO. There are important cultural issues there. — Baden

I think you're overlooking circumstances. You may just not know how prevalent American Communists were before the 1950s.

Europe ought to organize its own defence and move away from the US. — Baden

I think that would result in an upheaval and probably wouldnt be undertaken unless they were actually under attack (at which point they would be doomed).

I'm just pondering.

You may just not know how prevalent American Communists were before the 1950s. — frank

Your culture (and politics) has changed.

(at which point they would be doomed). — frank

Hardly. We have a strong nuclear deterrent and the ability to defend ourselves against pretty much anyone except the US. But then, I don't see that war happening unless things really get wild with Trump.

I'm just pondering. — frank

Sounds more like an attempt at one-upmanship based on your country's superior firepower.

Your culture (and politics) has changed. — Baden

That would be a more narrow meaning of "culture" than I was thinking of.

Hardly. We have a strong nuclear deterrent and the ability to defend ourselves against pretty much anyone except the US. But then, I don't see that war happening unless things really get wild with Trump. — Baden

I dont think Europe is prepared to defend itself from Russia and certainly not China.

The point is that Europe expects to be led militarily by the US. The EU administration therefore has no stake in reinforcing unity. They allowed antagonism to infect the relationship between members and the administration because they had no reason not to.

If the EU administration had defense as a high priority things would be different politically and economically throughout Europe. It would be a totally different place. And so would the US.

Sounds more like an attempt at one-upmanship based on your country's superior firepower. — Baden

Answering this would require a dive into psychology that wouldn't be anywhere near as interesting as the bizarre mural I'm painting due to extended vacation because my hospital is close to vacant.

Fortunately I'm always overflowing with PTO. Some of the RNs I work with are being furloughed one week of every month. That means no PTO usage.

I dont think Europe is prepared to defend itself from Russia and certainly not China. — frank

There's more chance of Martians invading Europe than China. It'd be like Amazon bombing the post office.

There's more chance of Martians invading Europe than China. It'd be like Amazon bombing the post office. — Baden

I didnt say that Europe needs to defend itself from China.

I said it's been shaped politically and economically by the lack of any need to worry about defense.

And this might influence the way a European thinks about the difference between Biden and Trump.

Biden will continue efforts to undermine Russia's expansion. Trump won't. Biden will embrace relationships with Asian countries and reaffirm goodwill toward Europe. Trump won't.

Stuff like that.

I didnt say that Europe needs to defend itself from China. — frank

Then it doesn't need to prepare to defend itself from China as per:

I dont think Europe is prepared to defend itself from Russia and certainly not China. — frank

Re:

I said it's been shaped politically and economically by the lack of any need to worry about defense.

And this might influence the way a European thinks about the difference between Biden and Trump. — frank

OK.

Then it doesn't need to prepare to defend itself from China as per:

I dont think Europe is prepared to defend itself from Russia and certainly not China.
— frank — Baden

That was in response to your bizarre statement that Europe can defend itself from everyone but the US.

The need to maintain a standing army holds a country hostage in some ways. National security overrides other issues. In that climate, a special kind of corruption invades. Resistance to change is cemented by those who benefit from that corruption.

frank
4.8k
The need to maintain a standing army holds a country hostage in some ways. National security overrides other issues. In that climate, a special kind of corruption invades. Resistance to change is cemented by those who benefit from that corruption. — frank

We've grown so used to war over the centuries...it is almost a way of life.But what the hell would we want to fight wars for now?

Would anyone want to OCCUPY France...or England...or anyplace?

Can you imagine OCCUPYING China, Russia, India, the US...at this point?

Kings used to fight wars for territory. There is no need for that now.

The idea that the US has to spend as much as it does on military might...is fucking nuts.

We spend almost $800,000,000 per year on military.

We should be institutionalized for doing so.

This is why I think you're seriously better off getting Trump for another 4 years than some appeasement from Biden that very likely had the effect of diminishing the start of this fire.

Edit: in the long run obviously. In the short run it's shooting yourself in the foot. — Benkei

It's a fair point, and if this were any other election (besides 2016) I might agree it would be worthwhile just to rile the population even more. This is, after all, a time of more political organizing and activism than possibly even the 1960s, starting with the Women's March (largest protest in world history).

But we have to consider the larger context. For me, climate change is the most important issue -- because it's existential. Trump's policies on that are a well-known disaster and will continue for another four years, which we simply cannot afford. (Nuclear weapons are important too, as Chomsky has pointed out, but I know less about that other than Trump is accelerating our destruction there as well.)

If those things aren't scary enough, look at the Supreme Court and the appellate courts. McConnell has already appointed nearly 200 judges, and Trump has had two SCOTUS picks. Trump will almost certainly get another appointment if re-elected, shifting to a 6-3 conservative majority -- and possibly 2 (as Breyer is 81 years old). That will do untold long-term harm as well, leaving out even environmental policies mentioned above.

So as much as I'd love it, as someone who campaigned for Sanders, I'm forced to put reason over emotion in this case.

But what the hell would we want to fight wars for now? — Frank Apisa

I think there will be global conflicts in the 22nd century over resources.

The idea that the US has to spend as much as it does on military might...is fucking nuts. — Frank Apisa

Inertia and terrorists.

We spend almost $800,000,000 per year on military. — Frank Apisa

If only. I think you're missing a set of zeros.

tim wood
4.3k
We spend almost $800,000,000 per year on military.
— Frank Apisa
If only. I think you're missing a set of zeros. — tim wood

Yes I am, Tim. Good catch.

I originally wrote $800 billion (with a "b")...and then thought it would be more dramatic with the zero's.

Screwed it up. So...

We spend almost $800,000,000,000 per year on the military.

We spend almost $800,000,000,000 per year on the military. — Frank Apisa

I do not question your $8B figure. I do question whether it's a true figure - probably not too far off. Anyway, roughly $2500+ per US soul.

My understanding of the fall of the Soviet Union is that it was mainly - not entirely - the result of a decision by the Reagan administration that the US could spend them to death. And it did. I wonder now if the US is spending itself to death. If it is, can it be reversed, and on what terms.

tim wood
4.3k
We spend almost $800,000,000,000 per year on the military.
— Frank Apisa
I do not question your $8B figure. I do question whether it's a true figure - probably not too far off. Anyway, roughly $2500+ per US soul.

My understanding of the fall of the Soviet Union is that it was mainly - not entirely - the result of a decision by the Reagan administration that the US could spend them to death. And it did. I wonder now if the US is spending itself to death. If it is, can it be reversed, and on what terms. — tim wood

Only an opinion, but we do seem to be spending a lot.

The thing that I take into consideration is that every cent the government spends...someone else EARNS. Mostly, I suspect, the top 1% gets the cream...but a portion goes to those in the 99% below them. Every penny of military spending is EARNED (or obtained) by someone else in the economy.

My feeling is that the government should be the employer of last resort. There should NEVER be any unemployment, because the government (local, county, state, national) should be required to hire anyone who cannot get a job elsewhere in the economy. (There's a lot more to that thought, but best not to get into that here and now.) In other words, spend even more.

Reagan was a Neoliberal. His influence was a direct result of Neoconservatism, so there's some overlap between the two, and in the US there's a strong connection between Neoliberalism and hawkishness, which it inherits from its Neoconservative base.

I think that military spending during peacetime is a way a Neoliberal government can force the economy forward when Savings & Loan institutions or the banking system itself becomes overtly unstable (which they did occasionally since the late 80s). I think One-nation conservatism can do the same thing through social programs.

so there's some overlap between the two — frank

There's confluence but not concordance. Bill Clinton was a neoliberal too, but not a neocon (Hillary, on the other hand, hmm.)

I think that military spending during peacetime is a way a Neoliberal government can force the economy forward when Savings & Loan institutions or the banking system itself becomes overtly unstable (which they did occasionally since the late 80s). — frank

Well, as you no doubt saw from the Blyth vid, the neoliberal project is to divorce the material benefits of growth from the vast majority of the population and concentrate them in a tiny minority. So, the question becomes not 'How do we get growth?'—neoliberalism can deliver on that in multiple ways and we all get cheap technology (yay!) while not being able to afford houses and having fuck-all savings and huge debt (boo!). No, the question is 'How do we maintain an equitable enough sharing of the benefits of growth to maintain social cohesion'? Because otherwise 'Democracy' which is essentially a bunch of laws to protect the rich from us killing them and taking all their shit starts to look like a bad deal to the plebs propping up its dying corpse.

Not that this has anything to do with Joe Biden, but he's too boring to talk about anyway.

There's confluence but not concordance. Bill Clinton was a neoliberal too, but not a neocon (Hillary, on the other hand, hmm.) — Baden

Right. Neoliberalism is something in the background of political parties. It was an answer to the malaise of 1970s stagflation. Clinton started out as a leftist and morphed toward the center because it was the only way to get elected. Even then, he was only elected president because a third party emerged that split the Republican vote.

Well, as you no doubt saw from the Blyth vid, the neoliberal project is to divorce the material benefits of growth from the vast majority of the population and concentrate them in a tiny minority. — Baden

Calling it the neoliberal project makes it sound like it was consciously conducted by scam artists, as if someone actually wanted to concentrate wealth. For Americans, deregulation performed by a guy in a cowboy hat was in line with the American identity. Alan Greenspan was a fan of Ayn Rand's. Like it or hate it, there is an ideological aspect to American neoliberalism, and it's essentially neoconservatism.

So, the question becomes not 'How do we get growth?' — Baden

When a string of savings & loans collapses due to poor lending practices, I think an infusion of cash into the economy would be helpful in reversing a collapse in confidence. Is that wrong? My theory is that military spending in the US helped hide instability in the banking system over a period of several decades.

Not that this has anything to do with Joe Biden, but he's too boring to talk about anyway. — Baden

Boring is a virtue in a president.

Calling it the neoliberal project makes it sound like it was consciously conducted by scam artists, as if someone actually wanted to concentrate wealth. — frank

Yeah, they did. On Blyth's analysis, Keynesian in that form was unsustainable anyway, but there were conscious efforts by monied interests to concentrate wealth, none of which are particularly secret.

It's laid out pretty clearly in, for example:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/183033.A_Brief_History_of_Neoliberalism

For Americans, deregulation performed by a guy in a cowboy hat was in line with the American identity. — frank

:point:

scam artists — frank

Alan Greenspan was a fan of Ayn Rand's. Like it or hate it, there is an ideological aspect to American neoliberalism, and it's essentially neoconservatism. — frank

Neoconservatism directs itself primarily towards social conservatism and hawkish foreign policy. Neoliberalism is concerned with economics. The concepts face in different directions. Analytically, what's the return on conjoining them? (Socially liberal politicians in America are also almost exclusively neoliberal. If neoliberalism was ideologically neoconservative, they wouldn't be. Again, contextual confluence not ideological concordance.)

When a string of savings & loans collapses due to poor lending practices, I think an infusion of cash into the economy would be helpful in reversing a collapse in confidence. Is that wrong? — frank

The story of why things failed is more complicated than that as is the best solution. Though the US got it more right than the UK.

See, e.g:



(A fairly compelling story, though his predictions re Ireland didn't pan out. We are the poster boys for austerity and the only country where it seemed to "work".)

My theory is that military spending in the US helped hide instability in the banking system over a period of several decades. — frank

Tell me more.

It's laid out pretty clearly in, for example: — Baden

Cool, I'll read it.

Neoconservatism directs itself primarily towards social conservatism and hawkish foreign policy. Neoliberalism is concerned with economics. The concepts face in different directions. Analytically, what's the return on conjoining them? — Baden

The anti-labor aspect of neoliberalism fits the anti-leftist ideology of neoconservatism. Neocons just wouldn't accept any economic system that directs power to the people. An American liberal strikes an odd pose in an neoliberal setting and will show up as distinctly centrist. I think you're right that it's just a matter of circumstances that it works out that way in the US.

When a string of savings & loans collapses due to poor lending practices, I think an infusion of cash into the economy would be helpful in reversing a collapse in confidence. Is that wrong?
— frank

The story of why things failed is more complicated than that — Baden

The American savings & loan crisis was in the 80s and 90s. Under B. Clinton the banking system also appeared unstable for a while. It was an early sign that poor lending practices were becoming normal.

as is the best solution — Baden

Solution to what? I haven't watched the second video yet.

We are the poster boys for austerity and the only country where it seemed to "work".) — Baden

Interestingly, the Irish don't work much. Practically the whole country except for pubs closes at 5 pm. It's bizarre.

Tell me more. — Baden

I'm still rolling it around, it may be bullshit.

Interestingly, the Irish don't work much. Practically the whole country except for pubs closes at 5 pm. It's bizarre. — frank

We're too drunk to find shops after 5.

:razz: