pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 14 replies \ @justin_shocknet 10 Apr \ parent \ on: The WSJ (kinda) covers the Mar-a-Lago Accords plus Miran's Incredible Speech econ
They can either play by the US rules or go home, how is that extortion?
Solved it, what a genius, now go tell every country in the world something they don't know. They certainly won't laugh at the childish ignorance as to how complex supply chains and security zones are to refactor.
Because they need us, having them is nice but we don't need them. They have zero leverage.
They don't have to, but then they also can't sell their junk to us and make us prop up their worthless shitcoin to do so.
Some might, most though will recognize that the US security umbrella is still a better deal even if they can't freeload like they were before
Canada and Brazil aren't going to be creating expeditionary forces to protect their trade anytime soon.
OP reads the editorialized WSJ and NYT trash as if they are serious publications by serious people, opinion invalidated.
The rules being enforced through violence is how it’s extortion.
reply
Where is that happening?
reply
That’s literally the definition of the state. All of their rules are enforced by violence.
reply
The state is a monopoly on violence, that doesn't make it inherently coercive. The classical "outlaw" simply means no protection by the state.
Now not being retarded for a moment and accepting that the state is and everyone inherently lives under a state in a globally anarchic system, how is the US state extorting other states wrt trade?
reply
They’re threatening to infringe on the voluntarily made trade agreements between people from the foreign nation and their American counterparts, unless those nations alter their domestic policies in a manner that benefits the US government.
Now, I’ll readily grant that when those policies are themselves property infringements, this becomes much murkier.
reply
As an American corporate you're consenting to the American Security Apparatus "Terms of Service", if you don't like the terms of service you can take your business elsewhere.
Completely voluntary.
reply
I don’t grant that the state ever had the moral standing to create those terms of service.
reply
if you don't like the terms of service you can take your business elsewhere
Cancel your policy coverage and let me know how that works out, if you can go a year without your organs being harvested I'll be impressed.
For a person (and please don't take this the wrong way) who is obviously involved in Bitcoin, which was designed to exist outside the whims... influence and corruption of any nation state... you sure simp for the united states pretty hard
just saying
reply
You don't know who created Bitcoin and for what purpose, I'd surmise that you probably believe in the Satoshi fairytale as most adult children do, and think things like the timing of its release, it's emission schedule, and resemblance to NSA doctrine are complete coincidences.
Where I agree is that its design makes it resistant to change, and thus a paragon of stability. The paragon of stability the US dollar once represented.
What's been established now is that the current global monetary order is an existential national security liability for the US, and therefore needs to be restructured at all cost. Even if that's restructure necessitates a controlled demolition, that's better than the inevitable uncontrolled alternative.
It's these facts that make Bitcoin a national security imperative, the administration is full of Bitcoiners for a reason, because Bitcoin was designed by the NSA to provide the US national security apparatus a gentle off-ramp instead of a crash.
For a person obviously interested in Bitcoin, which was designed as a replacement for dollar hegemony and now being implemented by Bitcoiners that have seized power in Washington in the face of globalist resistance, you sure simp for the status quo pretty hard.
Just saying.
Because they need us, having them is nice but we don't need them. They have zero leverage.
Bold words, for a nation 36 trillion $$$ in debt
reply
That's a fake number that's only made believable in a fiat system that you're saying we shouldn't change.
You're contradicting yourself.
We're the only economy that matters, and its been that way since at least WW2, which is why the dollar is the reserve to begin with. Given that, there's no way we could have debt, because you can't borrow from people without an economy of their own.
Every economy built since WW2 has been built with US support, and the globalists are big mad we're not footing the bill anymore.
reply