Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Thomas Piketty: 'The reality is the US is losing control of the world'

lemonde.fr

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 212 posts

Re: Thomas Piketty: 'The reality is the US is losing control of the world'

#201

Post by wmorgan »

rayiner wrote: post #192
apawloski wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess I just fundamentally disagree that Trump’s the lesser of two evils, if you truly care about American values and culture. How could you want our children behaving like the example he sets? Can you justify his Rob Reiner tweet (for an immediately recent example) to me in a way that persuades me it’s how Americans should behave culturally? I would love for you to answer the question about whether you’d let us in…

People get their culture from how their families raise them, not how the President behaves. I don’t think one guy acting corruptly makes regularly people act corruptly. My dad didn’t leave Bangladesh because the President was corrupt. He left because everyone from the president on down was socialized into a culture that breeds corruption. So I think mass immigration is a much bigger risk. Look at the history of Chica…

Everybody grew up among, and got their culture from, lots of different kinds of people. You are right about the culture of Massachusetts, where I live. It’s a special place, but it’s a counterexample to your point. MA has one of the highest rates of foreign-born population in the country, and it has been that way for a long time. When I was growing up, there was a big influx of people from China. Today it’s India. A couple of generations ago, Italy/Ireland/Poland. “Eat to live, don’t live to eat” my mother told me, but her mom was born in Germany and her dad was Irish. Massachusetts — by the way also consistently one of the most Catholic states — shows you can have the Puritan culture without the Puritans.

Re: Thomas Piketty: 'The reality is the US is losing control of the world'

#202

Post by tim333 »

ericmay wrote: post #171
tencentshill wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing of note, yet. Like most US corporations, they're holding off on implementing real changes to see if we the people choose to continue on this self-destructive course after He leaves office.

In some ways self-destructive, in other ways not. President Biden restricted early use of long range weapons to strike Russia - that was self-destructive too. Really, what exactly are folks asking the United States to do here? Give more money or weapons? Sure we could give even more, I support that. I'm quite hawkish on both Russia and China. But I don't think that giving more money and arms tips the scales enough fo…

I would have prefered the US to be a bit firmer about Russia not invading in 2022 like don't do it or we'll send jets.

Still here we are and like you say 600m+ of us wanting 300m+ Americans to defend against Russia is a bit odd although you can see how it got that way - after WW1 and WW2 it seemed quite a good idea not to rearm Europe and the US was quite keen to confront the Soviets. It's changing now due to Trump being a bit useless and Europe not wanting to be next on the list after Ukraine.

Re: Thomas Piketty: 'The reality is the US is losing control of the world'

#203

Post by ericmay »

tim333 wrote: post #202
ericmay wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In some ways self-destructive, in other ways not. President Biden restricted early use of long range weapons to strike Russia - that was self-destructive too. Really, what exactly are folks asking the United States to do here? Give more money or weapons? Sure we could give even more, I support that. I'm quite hawkish on both Russia and China. But I don't think that giving more money and arms tips the scales enough fo…

I would have prefered the US to be a bit firmer about Russia not invading in 2022 like don't do it or we'll send jets. Still here we are and like you say 600m+ of us wanting 300m+ Americans to defend against Russia is a bit odd although you can see how it got that way - after WW1 and WW2 it seemed quite a good idea not to rearm Europe and the US was quite keen to confront the Soviets. It's changing now due to Trump b…

Tim I’m even more hawkish. I think we should have done what you suggest in 2022, but even today I think we should basically give Russia an ultimatum and then use air power to neuter their military (along with TBD ground forces from Europeans). The ideal time to do that was when we bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities.

I am happy that Europeans are taking their security more seriously, and I don’t fault them for not pursuing US levels of military spending. Both world wars were so catastrophic, how could someone imagine starting another war in Europe?! But then along comes Russia, aided and abetted by China and North Korea and Iran.

I’m not sure if President Trump has been useless. He’s certainly useful to someone but I for the life of me can’t tell who. One day he’s ready to force Ukraine to accept Ukraine’s demands, the next the administration says it’s open season on Russian shadow fleet tankers. He’s tired of paying, and I think we are giving away less, but then they are happy to sell weapons and provide loans. Loans which will be useless if Ukraine is conquered.

Though I do want to point out that post-WW2 European militaries were staffed to be ready to fight the Soviets too.

Re: Thomas Piketty: 'The reality is the US is losing control of the world'

#204

Post by aa-jv »

giardini wrote: post #149
aa-jv wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you forget their deal with the NSA? And their financial prowess?

What "deal"?

The 2009 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on signals intelligence (SIGINT) sharing.

Did you not read the Snowden revelations?

Re: Thomas Piketty: 'The reality is the US is losing control of the world'

#206

Post by justin66 »

mattmaroon wrote: post #205
justin66 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've done the arithmetic on that, have you?

Our national debt is $38 trillion, no arithmetic needed.

The reason what you're doing here - pointing to the national debt as a reason not to spend on a particular thing - is so fallacious is twofold:

1. There is always a national debt

2. There are always things we spend money on, nevertheless

What this fallacy avoids is the necessary question of prioritization. Some things we'd like to spend money on are more important than others. In truth, there's always money for any given thing. There's never money for everything we might desire to spend money on.

"Well, it’s worth it, we just can’t" is just nonsensical. It's either worth it or not, and making that decision requires some work.

It's a fallacy that's used by politicians all over the political spectrum, and it's highly useful for them. "We cannot possibly afford that thing you are asking for" is a lot less alienating to voters than "it's either that thing you are asking for, or this thing my donors have demanded."

Re: Thomas Piketty: 'The reality is the US is losing control of the world'

#207

Post by mattmaroon »

justin66 wrote: post #206
mattmaroon wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our national debt is $38 trillion, no arithmetic needed.

The reason what you're doing here - pointing to the national debt as a reason not to spend on a particular thing - is so fallacious is twofold: 1. There is always a national debt 2. There are always things we spend money on, nevertheless What this fallacy avoids is the necessary question of prioritization. Some things we'd like to spend money on are more important than others. In truth, there's always money for any g…

It’s Hacker News, not an essay. It isn’t fallacious, it’s an abbreviation.

It would be possible for us to continue propping up our allies who seemed (until Trump made it clear we might just take our ball and go home) completely uninterested in meeting the defense obligations agreed to, but it would come at a cost that would bankrupt us without us making other major sacrifices. We shouldn’t have to make those sacrifices to ensure the security of people who claim to be allies but don’t meet their own contractual obligations. I don’t find myself agreeing with Trump on very much, but on this one, he’s not only right, he’s the only person who could have caused any change. No other politician of either party was ever going to convince Europe to significantly increase military spending, even with the threat of Russia at their door.

It’s fairly obvious that was meant, and your comment is basically just the standard hacker news “aaaaactually”

Re: Thomas Piketty: 'The reality is the US is losing control of the world'

#208

Post by justin66 »

mattmaroon wrote: post #207
justin66 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason what you're doing here - pointing to the national debt as a reason not to spend on a particular thing - is so fallacious is twofold: 1. There is always a national debt 2. There are always things we spend money on, nevertheless What this fallacy avoids is the necessary question of prioritization. Some things we'd like to spend money on are more important than others. In truth, there's always money for any g…

It’s Hacker News, not an essay. It isn’t fallacious, it’s an abbreviation. It would be possible for us to continue propping up our allies who seemed (until Trump made it clear we might just take our ball and go home) completely uninterested in meeting the defense obligations agreed to, but it would come at a cost that would bankrupt us without us making other major sacrifices. We shouldn’t have to make those sacrific…

"Propping up our allies" in Europe and therefore having a great deal of sway in international affairs netted the United States a great deal of money for a very long time. There's a longer argument to be had (one directly related to what Piketty is saying) but clearly no desire for it, which is fine.

Re: Thomas Piketty: 'The reality is the US is losing control of the world'

#209

Post by pfdietz »

padjo wrote: post #80
mattmaroon wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not that it’s not worth the expense, it’s that we’re unable to continue funding global peace and prosperity ourselves. And we shouldn’t have to. I don’t agree with Trump about much but he’s correct that the other liberal democracies have been more than happy to have us foot the bill for keeping the wolves at bay while looking down on us for doing it.

You have to consider how much it felt like progress for Europe to become less militaristic. The continent had been obliterated by war and then divided and filled with tanks during the cold war. For Europe, reducing military spending was seen as a welcome step away from the internal conflicts of the past. This is changing now, and while America may see this as a victory I find it hard to welcome headlines like “German…

The feelings of Europeans are not a justification for the taxing of Americans.

Re: Thomas Piketty: 'The reality is the US is losing control of the world'

#210

Post by pfdietz »

justin66 wrote: post #208
mattmaroon wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s Hacker News, not an essay. It isn’t fallacious, it’s an abbreviation. It would be possible for us to continue propping up our allies who seemed (until Trump made it clear we might just take our ball and go home) completely uninterested in meeting the defense obligations agreed to, but it would come at a cost that would bankrupt us without us making other major sacrifices. We shouldn’t have to make those sacrific…

"Propping up our allies" in Europe and therefore having a great deal of sway in international affairs netted the United States a great deal of money for a very long time. There's a longer argument to be had (one directly related to what Piketty is saying) but clearly no desire for it, which is fine.

You mean, it allowed the US to continue to borrow beyond its means without being called on it. Thanks a whole lot, world.
Post reply on HN