UNI88 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 9:44 am
kalm wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 9:41 am
I was invited.
(I pretty much agree with you. It’s unrealistic at this point. There are things that still go bump in the night and we’re still the go-to although Europe is certainly upping its military strength thanks to Putin.)
"Its an interesting debate and I'd love to hear Ganny and CID's thoughts on this
as well as anyone else's."
I wanted Ganny's thoughts because he is well read and logical. I learn something even when I disagree with him. CID is well read and logical as well but IMO his professional knowledge and experience lends even more weight to his opinions on this topic.
Sorry - work and life were/are busy, not posting as much.
As for Vance, I don't dislike the viewpoint, at least it actually shows some thought which is hard to come by these days.
I have been and always will be more of a globalist. I don't think long-term we can succeed or will like a world where we don't participate or where we only participate with us dictating the conditions where the conditions always favor us. The world is a nicer place when we engage with the world. So it's the political impact and the economic impact. Politically, I don't think there's any doubt that us pushing out into the world is a better thing. Unfortunately, there are bad actors out there - the Russia's, the China's, and folks like Iran. They are out for themselves, they either want to push a religious hegemony or they look down ethnically on other's not them or they just want to dominate the power structure of the world. Granted, a rules-based international system has and will benefit the US, no doubt, but it's also because that type of a system rewards competition and hard work and ingenuity and we generally do well in things like that. But with us in the world, it's also a far safer and peaceful world, at least compared to what it would be without us. There's always going to be conflict going on somewhere, humanity is what it is, but the bigger stuff gets snuffed out because we are on the scene. I don't see the MAGA or Vance viewpoint that by closing our doors to the world that it's a better thing.
Economically, Vance has more of a point, and probably has the likes of kalmie and Trump in his corner since they both also advocate American-interests dominating all trade. We do need to protect jobs and the economy in our country, no doubt. And there needs to be a better balance of that versus the 1990's-2000's pursuit of pure free trade. But the rest of the world isn't going away, the planet isn't getting bigger, and there are more and more people in the world everyday. We have no growth if we don't engage with the rest of the world, and here we can structure the system to help us and favor us. It clearly has worked for us since we've had this system in place since the end of WWII and our standard of living has never been higher. Being poor sucks, but you certainly rather be poor in America than anywhere else. But we need to be careful saying things like "we need more manufacturing here" and other tropes like that. We make more now per-capita than ever in our history - we're a manufacturing powerhouse. The thing is, we just are so incredibly efficient at it that we do all that with less and less labor to do it. That's not a bad thing, just a reality of our productivity and ingenuity and something we need to deal with. What do the displaced workers do to earn a living? I don't have all the answers, but I know Vance doesn't either. An America First idea he pushes, and Trump and kalmie and even houndy (with his nationalize everything bent) is not a long term sustainable approach. The rest of the world is out there, and the majority of consumers are outside of this country. Turning our backs on that market doesn't work long term.