I have said for many years that in the distant future, historians (those privileged by their patrons to claim the freedom of unfettered research), will read about the brief spasm in history, climaxing in the latter half of the 20th century, in which for half the globe, autocracy, dictatorship and absolute monarchy gave way to a system in which the proletariat believed they had (and amazingly in many circumstances actually had) the freedom to be, to think, to live, to flourish - largely as they wished! Those historians will wonder how this chaotic anarchy managed to not only survive, but momentarily flourish before the immense pressure of history brought about the reversal to the mean: the autocrats ruling, precious few flourishing at their feet, and the rest subsisting sullenly.
That's just history though, a paucity of human existence committed to script, nothing at all of, say, 70K years of libertarian utopia in post-Sahul, just the tantalising remnants of pre digital Instagram real silicon party posts.
Good for him! The time for negotiation is before the war, not after you've been utterly destroyed. For him to give in to the slave-owning south having won a civil war at such high cost, would have been snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
No. DDG has done no such thing. They've provided a shortcut (via a dedicated URL) for those who want to avoid AI answers in search. They are absolutely still providing AI answers as defined by user settings (defaulting to "Sometimes"). Just not via this specific URL.
The kind of far-sighted deal in which the US gets effective use of its allies territories to project military force far beyond its border, in order to contain its superpower rivals, the Russian Federation and China. This is done primarily to protect the USA's own interests (military and commercial), and secondarily (and as a quid-pro-quo) to defend the territory of its allies. That's what military alliances are about. You may recall the Iraq war when several allies of the US joined your country in fighting the Ba'athists, and then in the aftermath - when a multi-national peace keeping force was assembled (notably, including Denmark and Norway). Right or wrong, the US called, and allies responded.
Of course, if the USA no longer wants those bases all around the world, the US government is entirely free to withdraw them.
You're thinking too narrowly. It's not just about mutual trade. It's the fact that US companies have firmly planted the flag almost everywhere on earth - a feat only possible through the Pax Americana. If you want to see what the world will look like for the USA when it can rely on no allies to support its military misadventures, when it can rely on no favourable treatment from allies for its corporations, when it sees its former allies forming deals with former enemies, and when the cost of losing the US dollar's primacy as the reserve currency for world trade hits your country in its ability to raise (and service) debt - just wait. That world is slowly coming.
U.S. companies planted a flag all over the world for the same reason Chinese companies have done so. In 1930 the U.S. was the manufacturing giant that China is today.
I suspect the military misadventures will have to end, but that’s a good thing. In terms of reserve currency and trade deals or whatnot—I’m not persuaded it matters for economic growth.
GDP per capita is irrelevant to the benefits of being the world's reserve currency. You could search for it yourself but I'll do you a favour. Having the US$ be the world's reserve currency means the US government can borrow far more and on more favourable terms than other countries. It's why your country seems immune to the consequences of an ever-spiralling debt burden.
In addition, having the world's trade be denominated in US$ makes it incredibly easy for the US government to apply economic pressure to bear on other countries.
This is a privilege that few other countries share in any meaningful way.
Being the world's reserve currency just means that institutional investors around the world perceive U.S.-based assets as inherently more reliable, which leads to extra demand for these assets. That can degrade a lot quicker than you might expect when you see things like the current administration pressuring the Chairman of the Federal Reserve to lower rates and create more inflation, in direct violation of a very clear Congressional mandate.
> If none of that stuff makes the U.S. richer who cares?
Your bondholders certainly care, and you've been living beyond your means for quite some time.
I wish you the very best of luck with either massive expenditure cuts causing civil unrest, or hyper-inflation.
Honestly, I can't even believe that someone (who generally expresses reasoned viewpoints) would question the value of being the world's reserve currency. There's definitely downsides but it's allowed a lot more flexibility for the US since the 70s.
Thank you for taking the time to write this. I feel for you and understand (though disagree with) the nihilism of your friends. As an outsider, it saddens me to bear witness to the beginning of the sunset of the American epoch. What a bold, noble experiment the USA was!
Who said they’re contributing to the problem? Perhaps you are by constantly downplaying what sounds like wilful ignorance on the part of your friend? Some people’s ignorance does not deserve the same respect as others’ reasoning. Your friend sounds like they enjoy trolling you.
Playing the little devil on cheshire's shoulder, I see. Maybe it's not for the best to encourage people to stop being gracious in times of high political turmoil.
It's very sad, but this applies to what seems like everyone now. Required reading for internet users should be The Anatomy of Peace by the Harbinger Institute. I suppose you'd have to peel people away from their social algorithms though, which might be an impossibility due to the decreasing attention span. The more I live in this world, the more I realize that this seems like the new norm, and hate it. I grew up around a lot of great people with big hearts, and I just don't get it. I think John Coffey said it best when hes said "Mostly, I'm tired of people being ugly to each other."
I am still surrounded by people with big hearts, but I think they have separated themselves into a family/friends/acquaintances persona and a "political entity" persona which is increasingly hostile and more frequently exercised due to social media bubbles. People who are openly hostile (and sometimes outright homicidal) on social media are still cuddly teddy bears in person, but the more they access that anger and hate for people they'd normally foster relationships with, the more our ability to find commonality erodes.
I have an uncle that I've always been fond of who recently has spouted some mind-bending support of the current administration, and it was like talking to someone who lives in another dimension. My Dad too was indoctrinated by Fox News (because he was spending a lot of time with my grandparents) and some of his political views are irreconcilable with the man I knew growing up.
This is very well said. I've also noticed the jekyll and hyde thing - for several years now and I've seen people that act basically like extremists online be some of my favorite people in person. Both right and left leaning. Very bizarre and sad stuff. I'm fairly conservative, but we need to be able to call a spade a spade when it comes down to it.
https://github.com/FlashLabs-AI-Corp/FlashLabs-Chroma
reply