'Murica! (38 Viewers)

[U Picciriddu]

That is such a naive opinion. Defense expenditure does not exist in a vacuum. You always pay one way or another. The US wouldn't offer security to Europe, if it wasn't in their best interest economically.

I do agree that Europe needs to invest more in building its own armed forces. But the idea that we haven't paid for any of it until now is flat out false.

That last part are your words. I’ve never said that. There’s a difference in having a army and meeting your agreements.

Its been clear here for years that even though The Netherlands has a army, it isn’t capable of defending its own country simply due to being stripped down over the last decades. You can Google it if you don’t believe me you speak Dutch. Add that most EU countries weren’t meeting the 2% GDP and a simple conclusion is that we have a huge problem.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[swag]

If you put it on autoplay, it gets better and better like a mantra after 10 minutes ... then 90 .... then half your day....

 

[Seven]

That last part are your words. I’ve never said that. There’s a difference in having a army and meeting your agreements.

Its been clear here for years that even though The Netherlands has a army, it isn’t capable of defending its own country simply due to being stripped down over the last decades. You can Google it if you don’t believe me you speak Dutch. Add that most EU countries weren’t meeting the 2% GDP and a simple conclusion is that we have a huge problem.

I definitely believe you. That's the case for Belgium as well.

I know the European Union is basically an economic union. It's about creating a larger European market. But I believe that, if we want to create an actual army worth its name, this most likely has to be a Paneuropean effort.

 

[Catenaccio]

I am no Trump fan and generally the state of US politics is sub-optimal but the whole idea that if Trump wins the world goes to shit is also completely overstated.

In fact, the role of government in general is overstated. Yes Trump is unlikeable - a narcissist? absolutely. But ultimately, he won't change things that much - much like he didn't change things much last time. The people that vote for him are a combination of working class and rich people - the former being misguided and the latter informed.

 

[ALC]

I am no Trump fan and generally the state of US politics is sub-optimal but the whole idea that if Trump wins the world goes to shit is also completely overstated.

In fact, the role of government in general is overstated. Yes Trump is unlikeable - a narcissist? absolutely. But ultimately, he won't change things that much - much like he didn't change things much last time. The people that vote for him are a combination of working class and rich people - the former being misguided and the latter informed.

Do you really think that? And do you mean only in the context of the US? Because I’d say the role of the govt is pretty significant.

 

[Catenaccio]

Do you really think that? And do you mean only in the context of the US? Because I’d say the role of the govt is pretty significant.

Completely dude - in an open market economy absolutely. The great successes of the US economy all came from the government doing NOTHING. Its a different story for controlled economies like China where the government plays a far bigger role.

 

[Seven]

Completely dude - in an open market economy absolutely. The great successes of the US economy all came from the government doing NOTHING. Its a different story for controlled economies like China where the government plays a far bigger role.

You actually need a government for an open market in the first place lol.

I don't think the role of the government can be overstated. I do agree with you that the world will not end if Trump is elected president.

 

[ALC]

Completely dude - in an open market economy absolutely. The great successes of the US economy all came from the government doing NOTHING. It’s a different story for controlled economies like China where the government plays a far bigger role.

Like seven said, that is due to a us govt that is very corporate friendly. It doesn’t mean that can continue to be the case forever.

I wouldn’t say the govt has done nothing, they are slow absolutely but they do make things happen.

a lot of services we take from granted are due to the govt, a lot of prices being so low are due to govt subsidies, among many other things

 

[Catenaccio]

Im not saying that a government has no significance. It just not as big as most think and that is mostly down to politics and everyone's self interest. Big changes in policy are generally hard to put through for that very reason.

Take the American tax system as a case in point (as what would be the case with most countries mind you). The tax code is 10x thicker than war and peace - overcomplicated, outdated and inefficient. Nobody has dared to do serious reform to it because it cannot happen due to politics, self interest etc. Therefore, little reform ever really happens. Government impact is generally overstated.

Everyone goes on about how America is so divided. The funny thing is America at its core is much more unified than the press or social media is willing to admit. If you ask most americans they will agree on core things: Racism is bad - yes, women's rights - yes, democracy and freedom - yes, constitution -yes, background checks on criminal records for firearms - yes etc. The media likes to exacerbate differences but in the end most Americans at their core are pretty centre and rational. But in terms of pure Federal politics, the only things that seem to have bipartism support are: Putin bad, China bad, Iran bad. All esle is up for debate but with very little actual difference in action plans.

 

[AFL_ITALIA]

Completely dude - in an open market economy absolutely. The great successes of the US economy all came from the government doing NOTHING. Its a different story for controlled economies like China where the government plays a far bigger role.

There's far more at play here than just the economy though.

 

[Catenaccio]

There's far more at play here than just the economy though.

Like what? The US is becoming increasingly non-involved in global defense. The only other thing is social issues - to which its becoming increasingly clear that the big reason why the republicans have so much support is because the silent majority of animosity towards extreme woke culture. In the end though, the goverment can only do so much on that front.

 

[Seven]

Like what? The US is becoming increasingly non-involved in global defense. The only other thing is social issues - to which its becoming increasingly clear that the big reason why the republicans have so much support is because the silent majority of animosity towards extreme woke culture. In the end though, the goverment can only do so much on that front.

Well, some people would argue healthcare and education are important.

- - - Updated - - -

Im not saying that a government has no significance. It just not as big as most think and that is mostly down to politics and everyone's self interest. Big changes in policy are generally hard to put through for that very reason.

Take the American tax system as a case in point (as what would be the case with most countries mind you). The tax code is 10x thicker than war and peace - overcomplicated, outdated and inefficient. Nobody has dared to do serious reform to it because it cannot happen due to politics, self interest etc. Therefore, little reform ever really happens. Government impact is generally overstated.

Everyone goes on about how America is so divided. The funny thing is America at its core is much more unified than the press or social media is willing to admit. If you ask most americans they will agree on core things: Racism is bad - yes, women's rights - yes, democracy and freedom - yes, constitution -yes, background checks on criminal records for firearms - yes etc. The media likes to exacerbate differences but in the end most Americans at their core are pretty centre and rational. But in terms of pure Federal politics, the only things that seem to have bipartism support are: Putin bad, China bad, Iran bad. All esle is up for debate but with very little actual difference in action plans.

I'm sure the women in fear of dying because they can't get a legal abortion in their state are really grateful that Americans agree on women's rights.

 

[AFL_ITALIA]

Like what? The US is becoming increasingly non-involved in global defense. The only other thing is social issues - to which its becoming increasingly clear that the big reason why the republicans have so much support is because the silent majority of animosity towards extreme woke culture. In the end though, the goverment can only do so much on that front.

"Increasingly non-involved" still includes a current war in one part of the world and a massacre in another that need to be handled, the way in which they're done will have lasting repercussions across multiple continents.
- healthcare
- role of regulatory agencies
- environmental policy
- energy production
- border security
These are a few, but can't just be brushed aside as "oh they're just some social issue nothings." Action or inaction taken on these now will strongly determine where we are decades from now.

 

[ALC]

Im not saying that a government has no significance. It just not as big as most think and that is mostly down to politics and everyone's self interest. Big changes in policy are generally hard to put through for that very reason.

Take the American tax system as a case in point (as what would be the case with most countries mind you). The tax code is 10x thicker than war and peace - overcomplicated, outdated and inefficient. Nobody has dared to do serious reform to it because it cannot happen due to politics, self interest etc. Therefore, little reform ever really happens. Government impact is generally overstated.

Everyone goes on about how America is so divided. The funny thing is America at its core is much more unified than the press or social media is willing to admit. If you ask most americans they will agree on core things: Racism is bad - yes, women's rights - yes, democracy and freedom - yes, constitution -yes, background checks on criminal records for firearms - yes etc. The media likes to exacerbate differences but in the end most Americans at their core are pretty centre and rational. But in terms of pure Federal politics, the only things that seem to have bipartism support are: Putin bad, China bad, Iran bad. All esle is up for debate but with very little actual difference in action plans.

have you looked into republican policies?
They boil down to cutting taxes and most govt support for everything, including schools, the post service, infrastructure, etc. to me it feels like their goal is to privatize everything

 

[Seven]

have you looked into republican policies?
They boil down to cutting taxes and most govt support for everything, including schools, the post service, infrastructure, etc. to me it feels like their goal is to privatize everything

Which is bad for anyone except the corporations who now own whatever is privatized. We have so many examples. Time and time again we realise 20 years down the road that it was a bad idea. But obviously it's not based on experience or insight. It's just corporations pushing an agenda.

 

[U Picciriddu]

I definitely believe you. That's the case for Belgium as well.

I know the European Union is basically an economic union. It's about creating a larger European market. But I believe that, if we want to create an actual army worth its name, this most likely has to be a Paneuropean effort.

Yes it definitely has to be a continental effort.

Now imagine if the USA got a president who’s fully committed to all our needs regarding energy and defense (Trump would be all-in in regards to energy anyway), it won’t help us in the long haul besides staying highly under the influence and dependence of the USA.

Therefore I’ll continue to defend my controversial opinion: Trump is the wake-up call we need and it will make Europe stronger in the long haul.

All the other things internally at the US, like tax fraud, health care and so on really aren’t relevant for us.

 

[Seven]

Yes it definitely has to be a continental effort.

Now imagine if the USA got a president who’s fully committed to all our needs regarding energy and defense (Trump would be all-in in regards to energy anyway), it won’t help us in the long haul besides staying highly under the influence and dependence of the USA.

Therefore I’ll continue to defend my controversial opinion: Trump is the wake-up call we need and it will make Europe stronger in the long haul.

All the other things internally at the US, like tax fraud, health care and so on really aren’t relevant for us.

Well, okay, but I'm not looking at this from a strictly European point of view.

I actually like the US. I like spending holidays there. And the US is one of the largest countries in the world. In the end universal healthcare should be a goal for each and every human being on Earth. So yeah, I do want the US to perform well on those fronts as well.

Now does this keep me up at night? No, it doesn't. Because I do agree with you, Trump's immediate impact on Europe seems overstated.

 

[swag]

have you looked into republican policies?
They boil down to cutting taxes and most govt support for everything, including schools, the post service, infrastructure, etc. to me it feels like their goal is to privatize everything

That used to be true, but that was decades ago. There's a lot of lip service to that ideal, but ultimately Republican administrations have jacked up the national debt more than Democratic ones in the past few decades. This is my sliver of sympathy for the Tea Party wing of the GOP: they see the GOP saying one thing and just jacking up debt at least as bad as Democrats.

Privatizing everything sounds great in theory for a Milei type who has lived through heavy socialism. But then do it to education, like many are trying, and you see grifters with zero educational credentials essentially making a cash grab out of taxpayer funding with no improvement in outcomes, if not worse.

It's what they want to do in Texas. Which is a bit what happened to Chile in 2019 and sent everyone mad in the streets over a 4 penny increase in public transit fares. (Because it wasn't about transit fares.)

I hate the business analogy to government, because you cannot fire citizens and you cannot outsource your legislative branch to Mexico like corporates do. But a parallel of full privatization is a bit like how Netflix preferred to run an office a couple decades ago. They basically wanted to strip down everything so that all money would go into salary and employees practically had to buy their own desks if they wanted one. Zero shared perks.

While that seems maximally in favor of individualism, that pretty much depletes an entire office culture when there is next to zero shared experiences between employees besides the company Slack channels. Every one in it for themselves.

People talk about national identity and shared values. Well guess what? You privatize everything, and those things are now owned by Coca-Cola, Burger King, Home Depot, etc. You just sold your national culture out to the hands and wills of corporations, leaving your national identity as being just a shell of a consumer in shopping mall culture.

What's the cultural point of your mandatory national military service when you can just hire someone off of Taskrabbit or Fiver to take the bullet in the head for you?

 

[icemaη]

Which is bad for anyone except the corporations who now own whatever is privatized. We have so many examples. Time and time again we realise 20 years down the road that it was a bad idea. But obviously it's not based on experience or insight. It's just corporations pushing an agenda.

You just need to look at the debacle that is Thames water in the UK to see why public good should not be privatised. Are governments generally inefficient? Absolutely. Corporations who are only beholden to the shareholders with CEOs who have their pay linked on short term goals are a terrible alternative though.

 

[Seven]

You just need to look at the debacle that is Thames water in the UK to see why public good should not be privatised. Are governments generally inefficient? Absolutely. Corporations who are only beholden to the shareholders with CEOs who have their pay linked on short term goals are a terrible alternative though.

And the worst thing is that this debate comes up again and again. There's always politicans saying that maybe we can privatize this or privatize that and they'll act as if they've come up with this new grand idea. It's just bullshit. We know you shouldn't privatize healthcare, education or public transport.

- - - Updated - - -

Privatizing everything sounds great in theory for a Milei type who has lived through heavy socialism.

It doesn't even sound great in theory.

You cannot privately insure healthcare, because everyone needs healthcare at some point. That would make it uninsurable. You cannot privatize education, because the whole point of companies is offering as little as possible for as much money as possible. Do you want that in education?