The plutocracy, who runs things behind the scenes, decided long ago that the rent extracted from the outsourcing of industry could finance their imperial war machine.
Perkin's Confessions of an Economic Hitman [1][2] is a good read.
The US' problem with China is that they think long-term... Their leaders long ago realized they needed to industrialize, and started with whatever low-tech jobs western companies were willing to give them. Now they are demanding western companies share their crown jewels with Chinese companies (requiring that much of their high-speed rail infrastructure be manufactured in-country, etc).
Similarly, the US' problem with Russia is that they play chess, while US politicians play checkers.
I think Señor Trump is smart enough to know that the Imperialists are America's true enemy, but that Joe and Jane American don't realize the full extent of their government's "Economic Hitmen" activities. Hopefully he'll rename the Department of Homeland Security to something that doesn't imply imperialism. Similarly, hopefully he'll order the department of defense to reimagine itself into a department concerned with the country's defense, rather than being obsessed with the ability to destroy anything anywhere on the planet at a moment's notice.
For all the political chess, Russia's economy is still smaller than Italy's, despite having a pretty good setup in theory.
Russia is able to make noise and do things to Eastern Europe, but the government's moves seem to be much more about preserving the current government rather than advancing the interests of the nation as a whole
For example: how does annexing Crimea help Russia? Was that one navy port worth it?
A calculated risk, perhaps. But they seem to be bad at math.
> The plutocracy, who runs things behind the scenes, decided long ago that the rent extracted from the outsourcing of industry could finance their imperial war machine.
What does this mean? Who is the plutocracy? What is this rent? The gains of outsourcing go to customers. War is funded by government debt.
About 1/3 of U.S. government debt is held by foreigners. China, Japan, and the oil-producing nations use their trade surplus to buy US Bonds, because they have more cash than they need for the goods & services they purchased America.
I think this was covered in Mr. Perkins' book, but it's been a long time since I read it.
Nah, Trump and his crew are useful idiots when it comes to Russia; they think they are #1 teaming up with #3 to keep China stuck at #2, when the reality is they are getting tricked by the old "let's you and him fight, partner" gambit.
So, useful idiots, some bought off for stunningly cheap and others true believers or just outright incompetent.
Far likelier than a non-imperialist defense policy will be Flynn finally trying to launch that pre-emptive Christian jihad he's been salivating for, in partnership with Russia.
It would be nicer to see what you see, of course, but I can't what with having familiarity with the people involved.
> Nah, Trump and his crew are useful idiots when it comes to Russia;
Since Eisenhower, which presidents have not been 'useful idiots'? I'd nominate Kennedy and Carter. Someone I respect said that Nixon hated the globalists, but he escalated the war in Vietnam (only ending it after his re-election), and I wasn't alive then so I don't know.
In recent history, Clinton continued G.H.W. Bush's free trade agenda. GW Bush couldn't even read a teleprompter. Obama was good at reading the teleprompter, but didn't have a good understanding of any of the problems he was supposedly addressing.
I think the real useful idiots are those employed by the traditional news media: CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc. They lived in a little bubble, thinking that people really wanted four more years of the Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama status quo.
You have "interesting" and, to be polite, "idiosyncratic" ideas and framing to the point that the expected cost/benefit (for me) of having a real discussion doesn't seem favorable.
Instead, I would offer you some friendly advice: since you have such strong views, I encourage you to write down your political predictions (what you think the new admin will do; what you think will happen as a result; how you think other parties will react, and how those reactions will play out...whatever you think is valuable).
File these predictions away and revisit them at some future date. Keep score!
What did you get right? What did you get wrong? When you get things right, were you right for the reasons you expected to be right, or did you get lucky?
When you get things wrong, was it because you had bad information? Faulty reasoning? Unexpected left-field development not reasonably foreseeable?
Doing this exercise will only serve to sharpen your mind and your understanding!
If you really felt like the possibility of a 'real' discussion was nil, just don't post. taxicabjesus made valid points, and you just condescendingly insult him. For what purpose?
> Now they are demanding western companies share their crown jewels with Chinese companies
This has been the case for the last 20 years or so (at least). The recent industrial history of China is littered with failed join venture between a minority western partner and a majority local one.
Also, it isn't unheard from to have technology transfer on big contract, with often national interest seeking to secure local production.
I'm not sure that the "US politicians play checkers."
I don't think it is a coincidence that both Russia and the US are intervening in Syria, and causing problems for the EU. US currency hegemony benefits from a week EURO and Eurasian Economic Union. The complete and total dominance in so many metrics by the USA leads me to think that something better than checkers might be happening behind the scenes.
I think it would be much easier to pick on the coutries with vastly worse citizen outcomes such as China and Russia, than it would be to pick on the USA.
That being said, I think reduction in military spending and retasking soldiers into say, home building, is ok with me. If you can fire an automatic rifle, you can use a nailgun. The concept that no highschool graduate can afford a home is less than optimal.
As a former American now living in Japan, my perspective since leaving is that America has an edifice of "legitimate" news sources that serve as propaganda outlets by means of their focus and omissions. I lost count of the number of NYT/BBC/etc stories that misrepresent Japan and Asia in general in the context of geopolitics, popular culture, etc. Not to mention the overt election-steering by the NYT in its efforts to stimulate support for Clinton (which oddly continue to this day).
I'm quite interested in Japan (and wants to live there some day), mostly because I'm learning the language. What sort of things did you consider to be misrepresented? This question is from a position of complete ignorance, please don't feel like I'm doubting you.
- Stories that drive the narrative that Japan is on the brink of war with China. News in Japan covers tensions with China, but also positive news about foreign relations.
- Endless nonsense about poisonous food from Fukushima.
- The protectionist sham of Toyota's "unintended acceleration" scandal. (It turns out it was old people who stamped on the gas, but it served the domestic auto industry's interests.)
- All the stories about kids killing themselves in the foothills of Fujisan.
- All the stories about wacky vending machines. In reality, they're pretty boring but useful and ubiquitous.
- Stories about the activities of Tokyo Governor Koike that push the thesis that Japan is lagging behind the West in gender politics.
- Nearly every piece by Motoko Rich in the NYT.
Anyway, western media does a good job of avoiding outright untruths, but displays a frequent lack of nuance and a focus on things that aren't important in Japan. It makes me wonder why they feel the need to opine in the first place.
CNN, BBC and probably all of Western media channels have their agenda, but none of them is straightforward propaganda with direct control by government as RT is. Don't make mistake here, there are no RT counterpart in West, despite RT trying very hard to "prove" otherwise.
Propaganda for a state that controls hands-on and directly will be managed hands-on and directly.
Propaganda for a state that controls via economic incentives and backroom greasing will be handled via economic incentives and backroom greasing.
I'm a South American living in Canada and I honestly find this effort of yours to get people to stop sharing RT hilarious. I watch american channels (or Al-Jazeera) for news about Russia (or the Middle East), and vice-versa. This works well.
Hillary Clinton lost largely because the New York Times, your paper of record, assured people that she had in the bag and that they could stay home. Now people want to blame Russia for "hacking the election", and it's been reported so poorly by the New York Times and The Washington Post that 50% of liberals polled now believe that Russia hacked the vote tallies themselves. [0]
This is very similar to how in the wake of 9/11, the ignorance about the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan was exploited to rally support for war in the former. Or how the torture report was buried.
Take a step back and look at try to look at your posting in this topic objectively. You're fear-mongering and shaming, and not being persuasive.
I encourage everyone to read this article by Emily Bartlett Hines about "How The Times Failed You" [1]
"Take a step back and look at try to look at your posting in this topic objectively."
I happen to live in a country that's bordering Russia and can see first handedly what damage propaganda causes, especially to minorities here. So sorry, I can't "step back and see objectively". Propaganda is a weapon and should not be tolerated as such.
I'm South American so I have first handedly seen how American propaganda works. It may be different from Russian propaganda, but your plea that people stop sharing RussiaToday, in absence of equal pleas against The New York Times, comes off as ignorant. You may be scared about Russian military aggression, but I beg you to compare how much military aggression the US and Russia are both engaged in right now.
By the way, I decided to share the well-argued, well-cited article about the issues with pro-Clinton New York Times reporting on HackerNews, it got three upvotes, and then it got flagged to death.
Consider that we may both be between a rock and a hard place.
Ad hominem here, blind faith in the beeb there, either way, Jack Ma has a point.
Another posting on HN a few days ago said something like "noone will be able to beat the F-35 on cost". That cost is real. The F-35 doesn't become cheaper when RT runs story about it.
They both are non legitimate - it's easy answer. shame that propaganda sounds somewhat russian - as if it's not possible or wide-spread in USA.
What's interesting is that why there's no "start-up" that's focused on delivering factual news - real "independent" press that can accept push requests.
>What's interesting is that why there's no "start-up" that's focused on delivering factual news - real "independent" press that can accept push requests.
What? There's a lot, they don't call themselves 'start-ups' they go by other terms such as 'listener supported'
Like most government "wars" on a problem it has turned out to be an expensive effort to make the problem worse. I agree with the theory that this is by design; if a government program actually solved a problem then the funding goes away.
Let's say we spend $100 mil blowing up a neighborhood in Iraq vs $100 building a building in St Louis. Both employ people during the act. But the building in St Louis will be worth something at the end of it. And it will most likely facilitate more commerce. Same with building a highway.
You're forgetting to factor in all the other countries who look at how the hegemony can spend $100M on blowing up a neighborhood like it's nothing, and therefore decide to kowtow to the demands of the powerful, lest they suddenly come down with a case of terrorism themselves.
Great. Azerbaijan will do as we want. That's gotta be worth at least $50 to GDP, right?
I'm being snarky, but what is that X-factor actually worth? And should we then factor in all the people who will hate the USA and do their damnedest to maim & kill Americans?
I don't have numbers, but this doesn't seem like a winning argument.
Have you read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man? Look, they have the money figured out, they're not likely to do something unless they feel they're going to get ROI, and I don't mean ROI for you and me, no no no no. You and I are just on the hook for paying for the welfare checks delivered to these corporations.
Libya was toppled because Libya was key to keeping the West out of Africa, since Gaddafi fell, Western bases can't be built in Africa fast enough. Also, since the fall of Libya the people still haven't had their water works restored, oh but magically the West have graciously given the Libyan people the World Bank and other globalist institutions.
Also, maimed westerners == propaganda material and job security. How have you not figured this out yet?
You don't have the numbers, because your TV ain't gonna tell you them.
Over 1,400,000 Americans are now on active duty; another 833,000 are in the reserves, many full time. Another 1,600,000 Americans work in companies that supply the military with everything from weapons to utensils. (I’m not even including all the foreign contractors employing non-US citizens.)
What about all the jobs US destroyed. The world is much larger than the US. Bombing the shit out of Iraq totally destroyed their economy.
The ISIS exist because they're US military fucked up big time.
If trump manages to close a number of expensive military programs and put the money in infrastructure, I think that would make the world a slightly better place.
Yes war is bad. The topic was, a strange claim that war caused unemployment. Its been long understood that war created nearly full employment, for all the obvious reasons.
> Chinese billionaire and Alibaba founder Jack Ma believes that improper distribution of funds and hyper inflated US military spending, not globalization or other countries “stealing” US jobs, is behind the economic decline in America.
So the claim is that wiser spending would have resulted a better US economy, to which nojvek's comment seems germane to me.
Perkin's Confessions of an Economic Hitman [1][2] is a good read.
The US' problem with China is that they think long-term... Their leaders long ago realized they needed to industrialize, and started with whatever low-tech jobs western companies were willing to give them. Now they are demanding western companies share their crown jewels with Chinese companies (requiring that much of their high-speed rail infrastructure be manufactured in-country, etc).
Similarly, the US' problem with Russia is that they play chess, while US politicians play checkers.
I think Señor Trump is smart enough to know that the Imperialists are America's true enemy, but that Joe and Jane American don't realize the full extent of their government's "Economic Hitmen" activities. Hopefully he'll rename the Department of Homeland Security to something that doesn't imply imperialism. Similarly, hopefully he'll order the department of defense to reimagine itself into a department concerned with the country's defense, rather than being obsessed with the ability to destroy anything anywhere on the planet at a moment's notice.
[1] https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1576755126 [2] https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1626566763 (just learned there's a 2016 edition)