Trump's Foreign Policy and the American Empire in Decline

[Path-Finder]

Damn impressed!

 

[VCheng]

Here we go again!

@Hamartia Antidote

@F-22Raptor

 

[cloud4000]

Typical Marxist claptrap from a typical Marxist professor. Nothing to see here.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Here we go again!

@Hamartia Antidote

@F-22Raptor

Can we make a sticky thread “Doom/Gloom thread about the US and the dollar”

 

[hussain0216]

I think it doesn't help if Americans go into self denial

Power, influence, prestige are built on numerous pillars

The U.S military is still the most powerful and the U.S continues to have the biggest economy

But the world is changing we live in a multi polar world and American prestige and influence has not been this low since before 1945

As I said u.s military and economy is still large but respect for America has been in freefall and virtually fallen off a cliff since Trump came on board

What America says matters less today then it has for ages


When the american representative to the UN has to try and threaten and try to blackmail world nations you know the US has problems

 

[VCheng]

Can we make a sticky thread “Doom/Gloom thread about the US and the dollar”

A whole sub-forum may be needed, judging by the sheer volume of such threads made and encouraged here.

 

[cloud4000]

A whole sub-forum may be needed, judging by the sheer volume of such threads made and encouraged here.

One of the sticky threads should be the destruction of the petrodollar.

 

[VCheng]

One of the sticky threads should be the destruction of the petrodollar.

We can request @mohammad45 to be the moderator.

 

[Gomig-21]

Typical Marxist claptrap from a typical Marxist professor. Nothing to see here.

Well, there is quite a bit of truth to what he said. The premise of this whole lecture was how essential the US militarization is to the US economy, and that rationalizing it makes it acceptable rather that budgeting much more beneficial, social programs, universal healthcare being a prime example. There's undeniable truth to the fact that post WWII, the importance of having a strong economy which is heavily based on the military is something that Eisenhower (of all people, one of the most influential American military figures) had warned the world about. The way Eisenhower was careful not to include the word "congressional" in his famous phrase regarding the Industrial Military Complex holds a ton of truth to it.

The way he correlates the fluctuation of the economy and how the downward trend is always used to add to the military budget to help it rebound also relates to the current administration raising the military budget before that downward trend happens is very interesting. It shows that the Trump administration is using that classic, counter-cyclical spending when perhaps it realized that his election could quite possibly be followed by a brutal downtrend in the economy, and so staying ahead of the game by increasing the military budget prior to an economic downturn would actually help deter it from that highly perceived downfall. It makes a ton of sense.

The 2 things that I found interesting in what he said was the supporting of this notion that the US militarization for economic purposes is clearly seen in the F-35. He uses the example and then says "on a plane that will never be used" and it makes you think for a minute, is that a possibility? All the money dumped into that program and creating a monopoly with all its allies whom are buying it which in turn, creates such a deterrence that it will actually never be used for its ultimate purpose. Instead, what is more important is the economic result of developing a costly airplane like that. There's a lot of truth to that.

Most countries in the world will spend on social programs to counter that downfall and the US has a completely different rule that actually works when it decides to vastly spend on the military to counter that downtrend, hence the militarization of the US economy. US military budget compared to the other top 7 in the world combined is clear proof of that with the recent increase by Trump.

So he raises a very valid point as to whether the economy and growth of the US would be as successful in such a capitalistic-minded based economy which would unite the people and be much more beneficial, or whether the only way to do it is what has always worked for the US, and that is to constantly make it as a militarized-based economy, what he calls military kantianism. Privatization instead of socialization. It's also part of the idea of imperialism through strength of militarization.

The other part was labeling Trump as a Nazi and not a fascist. Interesting the way he explained that.

 

[VCheng]

Well, there is quite a bit of truth to what he said. The premise of this whole lecture was how essential the US militarization is to the US economy, and that rationalizing it makes it acceptable rather that budgeting much more beneficial, social programs, universal healthcare being a prime example. There's undeniable truth to the fact that post WWII, the importance of having a strong economy which is heavily based on the military is something that Eisenhower (of all people, one of the most influential American military figures) had warned the world about. The way Eisenhower was careful not to include the word "congressional" in his famous phrase regarding the Industrial Military Complex holds a ton of truth to it.

The way he correlates the fluctuation of the economy and how the downward trend is always used to add to the military budget to help it rebound also relates to the current administration raising the military budget before that downward trend happens is very interesting. It shows that the Trump administration is using that classic, counter-cyclical spending when perhaps it realized that his election could quite possibly be followed by a brutal downtrend in the economy, and so staying ahead of the game by increasing the military budget prior to an economic downturn would actually help deter it from that highly perceived downfall. It makes a ton of sense.

The 2 things that I found interesting in what he said was the supporting of this notion that the US militarization for economic purposes is clearly seen in the F-35. He uses the example and then says "on a plane that will never be used" and it makes you think for a minute, is that a possibility? All the money dumped into that program and creating a monopoly with all its allies whom are buying it which in turn, creates such a deterrence that it will actually never be used for its ultimate purpose. Instead, what is more important is the economic result of developing a costly airplane like that. There's a lot of truth to that.

Most countries in the world will spend on social programs to counter that downfall and the US has a completely different rule that actually works when it decides to vastly spend on the military to counter that downtrend, hence the militarization of the US economy. US military budget compared to the other top 7 in the world combined is clear proof of that with the recent increase by Trump.

So he raises a very valid point as to whether the economy and growth of the US would be as successful in such a capitalistic-minded based economy which would unite the people and be much more beneficial, or whether the only way to do it is what has always worked for the US, and that is to constantly make it as a militarized-based economy, what he calls military kantianism. Privatization instead of socialization. It's also part of the idea of imperialism through strength of militarization.

The other part was labeling Trump as a Nazi and not a fascist. Interesting the way he explained that.

Please do keep the following data in mind:

 

[undercover JIX]

Please do keep the following data in mind:

View attachment 445379

another thread mentioned about new home sales surge as well, good for ordinary Americans and its a sign of Improved jobs and economy.

 

[Gomig-21]

Please do keep the following data in mind:

I don't think he disputes this well known fact at all. As a matter of fact, his first few sentences he mentions how it's actually "rational" for the US to be a "militaristic power," it actually works in favor of US economic growth.

His biggest gripe is that we, the people, should try to change that rationality in the hopes of spending more on improving social programs that benefit the people. I don't see a problem with that school of thought.

 

[VCheng]

I don't think he disputes this well known fact at all. As a matter of fact, his first few sentences he mentions how it's actually "rational" for the US to be a "militaristic power," it actually works in favor of US economic growth.

His biggest gripe is that we, the people, should try to change that rationality in the hopes of spending more on improving social programs that benefit the people. I don't see a problem with that school of thought.

USA spends far more on social programs than it does on defense. And it is spending less on defense as a percentage of its GDP overall as a trend, the small bump after the 9/11 attacks included.

another thread mentioned about new home sales surge as well, good for ordinary Americans and its a sign of Improved jobs and economy.

No, the USA is dying and the dollar is dead and the empire is in decline and it is all evil and did I mention the dollar is dead?

 

[Gomig-21]

USA spends far more on social programs than it does on defense. And it is spending less on defense as a percentage of its GDP overall as a trend, the small bump after the 9/11 attacks included.

He's referring to spending more on social programs during those pivotal economic downturns, and not necessarily as a constant percentage of GDP. When GDP is so high, it's much easier to justify any type of spending in general, and the higher it is, the easier it is to justify the highest military budget (by far.)

But his point is that maybe the US should make those increases in social programs during those pivotal economic times instead of always cranking up the defense budget as the primary tool to reset the economic trend. He makes the argument that when these decisions are in the hands of the elite, it becomes a difficult proposition, and certainly in a highly capitalistic and privatized society. France is probably a very good example of where that increase in social spending during downfalls works very well.

Socialists will always promote ideas and solutions to level the playing field or even empower the people a lot more than the government, tough sell for the United States.

The one thing I don't see where he's coming from is the decline of the US empire. The future strength of the dollar might not be as secure as we would like it to be, but where the decline of the US empire as a result of militaristic kantianism is not clear to me.

 

[VCheng]

He's referring to spending more on social programs during those pivotal economic downturns, and not necessarily as a constant percentage of GDP. When GDP is so high, it's much easier to justify any type of spending in general, and the higher it is, the easier it is to justify the highest military budget (by far.)

But his point is that maybe the US should make those increases in social programs during those pivotal economic times instead of always cranking up the defense budget as the primary tool to reset the economic trend. He makes the argument that when these decisions are in the hands of the elite, it becomes a difficult proposition, and certainly in a highly capitalistic and privatized society. France is probably a very good example of where that increase in social spending during downfalls works very well.

Socialists will always promote ideas and solutions to level the playing field or even empower the people a lot more than the government, tough sell for the United States.

The one thing I don't see where he's coming from is the decline of the US empire. The future strength of the dollar might not be as secure as we would like it to be, but where the decline of the US empire as a result of militaristic kantianism is not clear to me.

The data argue against this claim of "cranking up" the defense budget as the primary tool to help in economic downturns. Clearly.