in other words, eugenics. we have a culling policy like in early animal domestication: herding pens outside the city walls to test whether infected animals are dangerous. only here, the culling is in the open society, without any advance warnings, which are suppressed from public knowledge as policy. it's far more dystopian than the hunger games.
A thought experiment: if our "leadership" had instead been chosen by an adversarial foreign power trying to inflict a maximal amount of damage on our country, how would they differ?
I think an adversarial foreign power would push to expand rather than diminish state funded media like CPS, PBS and NPR. They’d probably also try to reduce the right to keep and bear arms and would increase regulation and taxes to damage domestic industrial capacity and reduce competitiveness. I don’t think our leadership at the executive level is doing this. I don’t think an adversarial power would invest $100B into TSMC Arizona or push Japanese car manufacturers and European pharmaceutical companies to build domestically. Thank you for sparking this thought experiment I actually did enjoy doing some research on this topic.
A foreign adversary would likely try much harder to influence the Federal Reserve Bank than the Trump administration already has. I think they would’ve asked for a wholesale firing of the voting members with yes-men replacements and several rate cuts after that, but it hasn’t happened. The Trump administration backed off from firing Powell and Cook, which I wouldn’t expect to see if someone else was pulling the strings.
Impacting our ability to borrow money/causing inflation are the strongest non-military weapons that can be used against the US, in my opinion.
But there are limits to how hard such policies can be pushed, right? For example the President can't just order the military to shoot all of our missiles straight up in the air, as many soldiers will balk and even if a few do get launched, the jig will be up. (however it might be part of a good strategy for when you are about to lose hold on power)
An explicit policy of this administration is to decrease the value of the US dollar. And while monetary inflation does somewhat influence other countries' willingness to loan money (ie buy Treasuries), isolating us from our allies and demonstrating general instability are also quite fundamental to that.
I didn't though. I asked for what the difference would be. Also keep in mind stupidity has been given a tricycle for the mind in the form of social media, and social media is full of foreign influence campaigns.
Sure, and they wouldn't really be effective if they weren't true believers. These people still had to get into those positions of leadership and broad power.
On the plus side, no foreigners will be visiting the USA due to having to divulge social media posts, crazy prices for entry yo Parks, and the obvious risk of murder. So the rest of the world is safe from this idiocy.
Probably the most visceral form of survivorship bias I’ve ever heard.
in other words, eugenics. we have a culling policy like in early animal domestication: herding pens outside the city walls to test whether infected animals are dangerous. only here, the culling is in the open society, without any advance warnings, which are suppressed from public knowledge as policy. it's far more dystopian than the hunger games.
A thought experiment: if our "leadership" had instead been chosen by an adversarial foreign power trying to inflict a maximal amount of damage on our country, how would they differ?
I think an adversarial foreign power would push to expand rather than diminish state funded media like CPS, PBS and NPR. They’d probably also try to reduce the right to keep and bear arms and would increase regulation and taxes to damage domestic industrial capacity and reduce competitiveness. I don’t think our leadership at the executive level is doing this. I don’t think an adversarial power would invest $100B into TSMC Arizona or push Japanese car manufacturers and European pharmaceutical companies to build domestically. Thank you for sparking this thought experiment I actually did enjoy doing some research on this topic.
A foreign adversary would likely try much harder to influence the Federal Reserve Bank than the Trump administration already has. I think they would’ve asked for a wholesale firing of the voting members with yes-men replacements and several rate cuts after that, but it hasn’t happened. The Trump administration backed off from firing Powell and Cook, which I wouldn’t expect to see if someone else was pulling the strings.
Impacting our ability to borrow money/causing inflation are the strongest non-military weapons that can be used against the US, in my opinion.
But there are limits to how hard such policies can be pushed, right? For example the President can't just order the military to shoot all of our missiles straight up in the air, as many soldiers will balk and even if a few do get launched, the jig will be up. (however it might be part of a good strategy for when you are about to lose hold on power)
An explicit policy of this administration is to decrease the value of the US dollar. And while monetary inflation does somewhat influence other countries' willingness to loan money (ie buy Treasuries), isolating us from our allies and demonstrating general instability are also quite fundamental to that.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
I didn't though. I asked for what the difference would be. Also keep in mind stupidity has been given a tricycle for the mind in the form of social media, and social media is full of foreign influence campaigns.
> I asked for what the difference would be.
Why?
> social media is full of foreign influence campaigns.
And local influence campaigns.
Which social media campaign gave RFK a brain worm in 2010?
Trump has basically been Trumpy for 40+ years: https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1ityrsu/1987_fullpage...
Sure, and they wouldn't really be effective if they weren't true believers. These people still had to get into those positions of leadership and broad power.
On the plus side, no foreigners will be visiting the USA due to having to divulge social media posts, crazy prices for entry yo Parks, and the obvious risk of murder. So the rest of the world is safe from this idiocy.
> So the rest of the world is safe from this idiocy.
Ho ho, some of us still have passports and could be coming to a country near YOU! cough cough