tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post3236999712354591519..comments2024-03-28T20:28:01.733-04:00Comments on Mike Norman Economics: Reuters — Europe must not bow to U.S. spending demands on NATO: EU's Junckermike normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03296006882513340747noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-3534005459512205342017-02-19T15:10:14.887-05:002017-02-19T15:10:14.887-05:00But it is a historical fact that capitalism has le...<i>But it is a historical fact that capitalism has led to the fastest rise in standard of living sand for the most people in human history and it's also a historical fact that because of the timing the American Empire is by far the most benevolent Empire at least I'm aware of.</i><br /><br />Sufficient condition, but a necessary one?Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-67868702278764439982017-02-19T11:03:20.268-05:002017-02-19T11:03:20.268-05:00Of course my opinions not historical fact. But it ...Of course my opinions not historical fact. But it is a historical fact that capitalism has led to the fastest rise in standard of living sand for the most people in human history and it's also a historical fact that because of the timing the American Empire is by far the most benevolent Empire at least I'm aware of.<br /><br /> So yes those are historical facts not my opinions. You said you disagree with me because my opinions are just my own but in this case I'm not giving you my opinions I'm just giving you some historical facts so sorry again that history disagrees with your opinionAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15433129947896088098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-8489664089341197742017-02-18T19:24:19.541-05:002017-02-18T19:24:19.541-05:00Your opinion is not historical fact. Your opinion is not historical fact. Noah Wayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12012500819097539976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-59997311349937397092017-02-18T18:35:57.723-05:002017-02-18T18:35:57.723-05:00Its just a historical fact. Im not making any argu...Its just a historical fact. Im not making any arguments. Im sorry that reality disagrees with your opinionsAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15433129947896088098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-3928987637705016752017-02-18T18:22:23.056-05:002017-02-18T18:22:23.056-05:00Materialism and exceptionalism - U$A! U$A!
Auburn...Materialism and exceptionalism - U$A! U$A!<br /><br />Auburn, I'm pretty sure you're the only one here who thinks that is a convincing argument. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Noah Wayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12012500819097539976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-33540965208681545052017-02-18T10:41:41.985-05:002017-02-18T10:41:41.985-05:00"Examples, please. Name a benevolent empire t..."Examples, please. Name a benevolent empire that existed in the last 1,000 years."<br /><br />I dont know what "benevolent" means in this context from an absolute POV. Like is there some certain magic net weighted ratio of good things and bad things done above which an empire is considered "benevolent" and below its not? <br /><br />So that idea doesnt really make sense in the context of empires and nation states. Relative benevolence is really the only analytical framework to use here. And the USA in this specific context could very easily be consdiered the most benevolent empire in history. If only as a tautological truism because slavery is gone, brute geographical conquering and occupying \governing as a colony is gone. Ours is a imperfectly but largely secular empire so there's not too much religious repression and exploitation. <br /><br />"capitalism, its been one of the most powerful forces for good in all of human history<br /><br />Examples, please. "<br /><br />Oh I dont know, basically everything thats good from a material POV around you. Capitalism or distributed private ownership and decision making and the consequent markets establish an evolutionary ecosystem that allows progress at an unbelievably accelerated rate compared to previous organizational systems. <br /><br />Again, pretty obvious and simple.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15433129947896088098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-5026478432184205702017-02-18T09:36:15.307-05:002017-02-18T09:36:15.307-05:00"Our enemies exist to feed our insatiable thi..."Our enemies exist to feed our insatiable thirst for profit, including and especially the military complex. The current action of the Deep State vs. Trump should make this patently clear to everyone with more than a couple of functioning neurons."<br /><br />Bravo Noah!The Rombach Reporthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09982864018333283368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-24235917515085948192017-02-18T09:02:26.912-05:002017-02-18T09:02:26.912-05:00Easy if you don't think very hard.
The empire...Easy if you don't think very hard.<br /><br /><i>The empire has been one of the most powerful forces for good in all of human history.</i><br /><br />Examples, please. Name a benevolent empire that existed in the last 1,000 years.<br /><br />Subjugation of indigenous peoples around the globe, slavery, genocide, stealing resources, waging wars of conquest or in competition for resources. Colonizing the world for profit at home! <br /><br /><i>capitalism, its been one of the most powerful forces for good in all of human history</i><br /><br />Examples, please. <br />Noah Wayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12012500819097539976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-45463662784393449122017-02-18T08:07:07.423-05:002017-02-18T08:07:07.423-05:00Protecting sea lanes = good
overthrowing nationali...Protecting sea lanes = good<br />overthrowing nationalist south american elected leaders = bad<br />protect and allow south Korea to become a modern, advanced wealthy country as opposed to the shit hole that is North Korea = Good<br />Institute and defend the first successful global governing body the UN (League of Nations was an epic failure mostly because we werent involved and strong enough to prevent horrible dictators from overrunning their smaller or poorer neighbors) = Good<br />Use our horrible economic ideology and influence in the International economic bodies like WTO IMF World Bank etc to impose austerity on developing countries or to punish countries that dont help make our rich people more rich = Bad<br /><br />See how easy this is Noah?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15433129947896088098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-55085549493694489042017-02-18T08:00:31.267-05:002017-02-18T08:00:31.267-05:00The empire has been one of the most powerful force...The empire has been one of the most powerful forces for good in all of human history. so of course I am in favor of it. As a intelligent, rational adult I can see the value with an enormous institution and still disagree with specific historical acts and policy positions.<br /><br />I like capitalism, its been one of the most powerful forces for good in all of human history. But like all enormous globe and species spanning enterprises there is plenty of bad to go with the good and we need to improve what we can. The empire is no different.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15433129947896088098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-12276149188130197072017-02-18T00:33:45.929-05:002017-02-18T00:33:45.929-05:00Auburn, your POV is the enemy of all humanity.
&q...Auburn, your POV is the enemy of all humanity.<br /><br />"I am in favor of the empire"Noah Wayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12012500819097539976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-67307160199715312112017-02-17T23:49:50.834-05:002017-02-17T23:49:50.834-05:00Chickens coming home to roost: from 1997:
http://...Chickens coming home to roost: from 1997:<br /><br />http://www.worldcat.org/title/nato-enlargement-should-canada-leave-nato/oclc/847256197Marian Rucciushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12944531845226157076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-44347321954576024882017-02-17T21:47:45.909-05:002017-02-17T21:47:45.909-05:00Noah-
Please refrain from insulting me as I am no...Noah-<br /><br />Please refrain from insulting me as I am not your enemy, thank you.<br /><br />With that said, the obvious reason why the US had all the leverage and power is precisely because of the millions of Soviet people who died fighting the Germans.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15433129947896088098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-47464053303141496862017-02-17T21:33:50.797-05:002017-02-17T21:33:50.797-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15433129947896088098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-72699872270532998882017-02-17T20:12:29.617-05:002017-02-17T20:12:29.617-05:00@Auburn, you've only got half the story, and i...@Auburn, you've only got half the story, and it's mostly fake news. <br /><br />The Soviets won WWII. They lost 6 times more people at Stalingrad (one battle) than the US did during the entire war. The US faced some 20 divisions in Europe, Russia faced 300 divisions in a massive invasion 1,000 miles deep, and then the same territory was fought over again when the Soviets pushed the Germans back to Berlin. Agreements made at Potsdam about the post-war division of Europe were abandoned by the allies after the war, marginalizing the Soviets. The US and its allies used a firm hand to suppress socialist movements across Europe (starting in 1946 in Greece) that were the result of WWII.<br /><br />Basic history that you can ignore at you own expense.Noah Wayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12012500819097539976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-24477347082780637532017-02-17T17:40:23.325-05:002017-02-17T17:40:23.325-05:00Personally, I think it was terrible what we did to...Personally, I think it was terrible what we did to those poor eastern europeans by basically sacrificing them for 50 years to the tender mercies of Russia. We lost 450k ppl fighting to stop some maniacal dictators only to leave half of Europe in the hands of one of the worst dictators in history. If nothing we owe these former soviet slave states this protection in compensation for abandoning them in 1945 instead of telling the Soviets that they have to stay inside their borders after WWII. God knows we had all the leverage and all the power in 1945 <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15433129947896088098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-72553071725543575202017-02-17T17:34:34.532-05:002017-02-17T17:34:34.532-05:00NOah-
If Russia doesnt like it that Estonia, Latv...NOah-<br /><br />If Russia doesnt like it that Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland etc are allying with the US and West in order to protect themselves from the neighbor who has dominated and terrorized their populations for centuries.....Too Fucking Bad!!!<br /><br />Maybe if the Soviet Union and Czarist Russia before it werent such psychotic assholes then their neighbors wouldnt be so terrified of them. Note that I wouldnt blame Poland and the rest from wanting protection from Germany either seeing as what the Prussians and Junkers had done to those poor people over the centuries, but thankfully Germany is not longer a threat to them so its not a problem. <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15433129947896088098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-23687420795510586952017-02-17T17:16:28.103-05:002017-02-17T17:16:28.103-05:00The only reason the former Soviet block countries ...<i>The only reason the former Soviet block countries were welcomed into NATO was because of internal electoral politics in the US, not for any strategic reason.</i><br /><br />NATO is a purely anti-Soviet military alliance and has been expanded consistently since WWII as a "defense" against so-called Soviet (now Russian) "aggression". In reality Soviet action has been largely defensive in nature, trying to prevent the spread of the anti-Soviet alliance to its very borders. One can only imagine the US response if the roles were reversed and Canada and Mexico became members of the Warsaw Pact - which itself was created in direct response to NATO. <br /><br /><b>Article 5</b><br /><br />The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them <b>in Europe or North America</b> shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.<br /><br /><i>What the US secretary of state said on Feb. 9, 1990 in the magnificent St. Catherine's Hall at the Kremlin is beyond dispute. There would be, in Baker's words, "no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east," provided the Soviets agreed to the NATO membership of a unified Germany. Moscow would think about it, Gorbachev said, but added: "any extension of the zone of NATO is unacceptable."<br /><br />Now, 20 years later, Gorbachev is still outraged when he is asked about this episode. "One cannot depend on American politicians," he told SPIEGEL. Baker, for his part, now offers a different interpretation of what he said in 1990, arguing that he was merely referring to East Germany, which was to be given a special status in the alliance -- nothing more.</i><br /><br />NATO's Eastward Expansion<br />Did the West Break Its Promise to Moscow?<br /><br />http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-did-the-west-break-its-promise-to-moscow-a-663315.htmlNoah Wayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12012500819097539976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-77754707964372175052017-02-17T14:44:05.096-05:002017-02-17T14:44:05.096-05:00Just a note, guys. The only reason the former Sovi...Just a note, guys. The only reason the former Soviet block countries were welcomed into NATO was because of internal electoral politics in the US, not for any strategic reason. Bill Clinton wanted Polish votes in Chicago and elsewhere -- same for the others (especially the Visegrad three and the Balts). US and Canadian Ukrainians are trying the same thing. The neo-con thing was just take advantage of the situation. That is what so many folk misunderstand about "disaster capitalism" -- yes, there is a lot of deliberate undermining of democracy by the US (not a good leader), but most of the shit is short term plutocratic opportunism.Marian Rucciushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12944531845226157076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-87234986691752742502017-02-17T14:40:25.605-05:002017-02-17T14:40:25.605-05:00I don't think that it is inevitable that the U...I don't think that it is inevitable that the US and China get into a military confrontation unless the US provokes it by crossing a Chinese red line. Same with Russia. <br /><br />It's not China's style in the first place, and it is not in China's national interest.<br /><br />On the other hand, the US is playing foot loose and fancy free with red lines. Dangerous game.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-14649994819909607762017-02-17T14:17:58.331-05:002017-02-17T14:17:58.331-05:00Absolutely, I believe it's only a matter of ti...Absolutely, I believe it's only a matter of time until the US and China face off in some Regional or World War sort of thing. I hope not but if history has taught us anything it's that sometimes Wars the only way to resolve dispute between two parties or ideologies etc.<br /><br /> This is why I pointed out repeatedly here on MNE the absolute necessity of the u.s. maintaining at least a 3% average growth rate. The difference between a 2% and 3% growth rate by the time we get to 2075 is either 55 trillion at 2% or 100 trillion at 3%. We're going to need every bit of that production to counterbalance China as it continues to use mmt principles to pull ahead of our stagnating nationAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15433129947896088098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-55037605189152880482017-02-17T14:04:14.857-05:002017-02-17T14:04:14.857-05:00So to say that China has the correct solution is t...<i>So to say that China has the correct solution is to ignore the reason why they're going that route in the first place as opposed to the military option. And that reason of course is the presence of the US Military and Empire</i><br /><br />If you believe that this just a mater of time before China kicks the US out of the Western Pacific or risks nuclear winter.<br /><br />Strategically, the US is overextended that far away from support bases when the adversary has land based missiles in abundance.<br /><br />I recall an admiral in the region saying that US carriers were invulnerable to attack because of missile protection. How many defensive missiles does a carrier group carry? 1000? All it takes in 1001 launched from land and air.<br /><br />China has also demonstrated the capability to take down US satellites upon which US intelligence and command and control are based. <br /><br />The other matter that is not taken into account is that open hostilities with China will have adverse effects on the global economy, not to mention US direct investment in China.<br /><br />No doubt that the US can still pressure China economically and militarily for a while. Then....Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-49535943627558079002017-02-17T13:52:38.545-05:002017-02-17T13:52:38.545-05:00Well, in my humble opinion Tom. The only reason wh...Well, in my humble opinion Tom. The only reason why China is negotiating with the regional Neighbours there as opposed to just taking what they want because they're clearly militarily Superior is because of the deterrence threat of the USA and its allies.<br /><br /> So to say that China has the correct solution is to ignore the reason why they're going that route in the first place as opposed to the military option. And that reason of course is the presence of the US Military and EmpireAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15433129947896088098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-55117571921740548902017-02-17T13:27:28.887-05:002017-02-17T13:27:28.887-05:00There are a lot of issues involved in the South Ch...There are a lot of issues involved in the South China Sea. There is no simple analysis of this. It's vastly complicated by the prospect of there being lot of oil and gas under those waves.<br /><br />China actually has the correct solution, which is for those in the region to negotiate a solution.<br /><br />The actual intention of the US is to contain China and be able to choke China's maritime access off, which is really a separate issue entirely. It's the US that is inserting the military component. The US perceives this as a national security issue, although it portrays it differently as a matter of propaganda for public consumption.<br /><br />Of course, it is a larger national security issue from China, just like Ukraine for Russia.<br /><br />The question is whether the US is promoting its national security or putting it at risk by trying to contain Russia and China, which are both nuclear powers.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-23078121138203343122017-02-17T13:17:54.760-05:002017-02-17T13:17:54.760-05:00What's think about the example of China In the...What's think about the example of China In the South China Sea. None of the countries surrounding that area either individually or all combined together Could stop China from taking over that see if they really wanted to do that. The only force in the world powerful enough to deter China is the US combined with our allies. This isn't theory or ideology it's the reality of the world we live in. It's human nature to try to get as much as we can get away with. Certainly not for everybody but for the people in power that's the way they think. All this is why libertarian ideology is fantastical when applied to either domestic economics and policy or foreign policy in the international world. Someone has to play the role of police and enforcer and rule setter there is literally no other way for humans to operate at this present time in our species and cultural evolutionAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15433129947896088098noreply@blogger.com