Military US Military Is Scared Americans Won't Fight For Globalism

[Agent23]

The Federal Reserve controls the US money printer and "stable prices" is part of what they're required to do. They don't have any control over oil prices but they do have a great deal of influence on the interest rate you'll pay when you need to borrow money to buy something like a car or a house.

What they are supposed to do and what ends up happening are two different things.
LBJ's massive spending that continued under Nixon, who also removed the gold peg, drove inflation further.
The chairman of the federal reserve back then was very accommodating and basically dropped the ball.
While there can be other causes, most of the time inflation is a monetary phenomenon.
The Great Inflation of the 1970s
We also got the same thing ramping up in the here and now, and the US dollar is the main currency used for international trade, however the size of debt is far, far bigger and the USA has far more unfunded liabilities on all levels, also you are responsible for far less of the global productive capacity now than you were back in the day.

 

[TheRomanSlayer]

I get the whole uncomfortable feeling that if you ever see US military ads these days, they're pandering to the broke wokes, who might be willing to fight for globalism. Only problem is, even the broke wokes might actually see through the propaganda. I suppose that the US could try to form its own equivalent of the French Foreign Legion, where anyone could come to serve in the American "Foreign Legion" for several years, in exchange for US citizenship. Within that period of time, they could indoctrinate the American Foreign Legionnaires into the cult of globalism, or would that job be for the UN?

Another thing that I have to point out: does the US even have its own combined arms doctrine that is effective at countering its adversaries?

 

[bintananth]

What they are supposed to do and what ends up happening are two different things.
LBJ's massive spending that continued under Nixon, who also removed the gold peg, drove inflation further.
The chairman of the federal reserve back then was very accommodating and basically dropped the ball.
While there can be other causes, most of the time inflation is a monetary phenomenon.
The Great Inflation of the 1970s
We also got the same thing ramping up in the here and now, and the US dollar is the main currency used for international trade, however the size of debt is far, far bigger and the USA has far more unfunded liabilities on all levels, also you are responsible for far less of the global productive capacity now than you were back in the day.

The US government actually owes more money to itself than it does to foreigners with the remainder (about half) owed to US citizens who let the US government borrow their money.

 

[Agent23]

The US government actually owes more money to itself than it does to foreigners with the remainder (about half) owed to US citizens who let the US government borrow their money.

US citizens are also very heavily indebted, as are your municipal and state authorities, you also have massive unfunded liabilities.
Printing money can last only so long before the rest of the world decides that there must be an alternative.
Printing money and moving money around does not increase productivity or output of exportable goods and services.
EDIT: visual aids

 

[Agent23]

I get the whole uncomfortable feeling that if you ever see US military ads these days, they're pandering to the broke wokes, who might be willing to fight for globalism. Only problem is, even the broke wokes might actually see through the propaganda. I suppose that the US could try to form its own equivalent of the French Foreign Legion, where anyone could come to serve in the American "Foreign Legion" for several years, in exchange for US citizenship. Within that period of time, they could indoctrinate the American Foreign Legionnaires into the cult of globalism, or would that job be for the UN?

Another thing that I have to point out: does the US even have its own combined arms doctrine that is effective at countering its adversaries?

You mean entitled trigglypuffs and soyboys with degrees in *studies that have become accustomed to getting anything and everything handed over to them by their parents or the government?

Yeah, they will do very well in bootcamp or on the battle field, no question.
Trigglypuffs, at least can be used as meat shields or rolled forward and used to squash the opposition, literally.

 

[Spartan303]

Despite some people in the Military going full Retard on the Social Justice advertisements, the fact is, most people still very much trust the Military. How that plays out in the future is anyone's guess, but as of right now, more trust them than not.

 

[Agent23]

Despite some people in the Military going full Retard on the Social Justice advertisements, the fact is, most people still very much trust the Military. How that plays out in the future is anyone's guess, but as of right now, more trust them than not.

Trust - maybe, willing and able to join after 20 years of forever wars. probably not.
The USA had trouble finding enough recruits ten years ago, due to lack of fitness and interest.
It isn't just about wokeness, from what I've heard you've had to lower your requirements and you still had problems with recruitments.

 

[Captain X]

Has owning gold been decriminalized again? Because it seems to me you can actually get solid gold proofs and the like. What was the justification for criminalizing it to begin with?

 

[Agent23]

Has owning gold been decriminalized again? Because it seems to me you can actually get solid gold proofs and the like. What was the justification for criminalizing it to begin with?

FDR decided it was a good idea.

 

[Arch Dornan]

You mean entitled trigglypuffs and soyboys with degrees in *studies that have become accustomed to getting anything and everything handed over to them by their parents or the government?

Yeah, they will do very well in bootcamp or on the battle field, no question.
Trigglypuffs, at least can be used as meat shields or rolled forward and used to squash the opposition, literally.

They'll have command send an angry letter to the enemy that one of their soldiers misgendered them so they'll be sacked.

 

[Bassoe]

Barely. For some time. If you can eat popcorn watching the world have grand oil wars and get the rest of your country to do the same, collapse of most of global trade including the parts your country is tied into included, you could try that.
But you do realize that this isn't how this would go, right?
In reality, that's a choice between putting out small fires regularly or putting out a wildfire later. Because its hard for me to imagine American establishment and media led public opinion alike wanting to completely sit this one out, or one managing to overpower the other in doing so. Its hard to think of major powers who wouldn't struggle to do so.

Respectfully disagree; the only tool the US has left to maintain its broken global economic system is the petro-dollar. The Bush invasions were about trying to control the global oil supply so the US could dictate to China, which needs massive amounts of oil to function, what the global rules are going to be. You're viewing America as simply a country that could cut loose from the world supply system and be fine, when in reality the US system is only functional because it rules the world through access to finance and oil...a control that is slipping away.

That has basically been the US policy need since the 1930s when the Depression revealed that the US system could not survive without major redistribution of wealth and power unless it turned the entire world into an economic colony. In the run up to the war, during it, and after WW2 the entire point of US foreign policy was maintaining economic domination over the globe and prevent rivals from operating outside the US run system.

Tomorrow, the World — Stephen Wertheim

How did the United States appoint itself as the world's supreme military power? Stephen Wertheim delves into the archives of the U.S. foreign policy elite to trace armed dominance to its origin in World War II. He shows how officials and intellectuals suddenly chose to embrace perpetual...

www.hup.harvard.edu

Hence the Bretton Woods system (abandoned in the 1970s due to the limitations of the gold standard and US finance issues during Vietnam) and the Petro-dollar effectively replace that and the gold standard:

Petrocurrency - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

How Petrodollars Affect the U.S. Dollar

We examine the rise of petrodollars and their influence on the USD as a global reserve currency.

www.investopedia.com

Effectively the value of the dollar is pegged to the value of global oil. All the more important due to Peak Oil being reached in the US in the 1970s:

1970s energy crisis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Things have improved since of course due to new technologies and prices making more marginal sources economically viable, but that contributed to the huge problems of oil shortages in the 1970s; OPEC made its move strategically.

Even if we accepted the hypothesis that the US needs to be conquering the world to maintain its economic prosperity as true, that doesn't change the issue that it hasn't been working. We've been doing everything the neoconservative military planners and economists suggest, yet we aren't even maintaining past levels of prosperity, let alone advancing and what wealth we do have is horded by the oligarchy, not distributed to the peasants the neocon empire depends upon as cannon fodder.

 

[sillygoose]

Even if we accepted the hypothesis that the US needs to be conquering the world to maintain its economic prosperity as true, that doesn't change the issue that it hasn't been working. We've been doing everything the neoconservative military planners and economists suggest, yet we aren't even maintaining past levels of prosperity, let alone advancing and what wealth we do have is horded by the oligarchy, not distributed to the peasants the neocon empire depends upon as cannon fodder.

It would be working if the wealth and income were distributed more rationally. Instead the billionaires have sucked up the gains and became so greedy that they'd effectively stolen even more from the general public through government policies. They have beggared the country to make themselves obscenely wealthy and then hide their ill-gotten gains abroad:

Super Rich Hide $21 Trillion Offshore, Study Says

It's isn't beaches like this that draw the extremely wealthy to the Cayman Islands. (Photo credit: toddwickersty) A new report finds that around the world the extremely wealthy have accumulated at least $21 trillion in secretive offshore accounts. That's a sum equal to the gross domestic...

www.forbes.com

$21-31 trillion hidden away in the hands of the ultra elite.

Imagine if that money had been actually used to develop the US and ensure that poverty and its effects were mitigated and there was no national debt.

 

[Marduk]

Even if we accepted the hypothesis that the US needs to be conquering the world to maintain its economic prosperity as true, that doesn't change the issue that it hasn't been working. We've been doing everything the neoconservative military planners and economists suggest, yet we aren't even maintaining past levels of prosperity, let alone advancing and what wealth we do have is horded by the oligarchy, not distributed to the peasants the neocon empire depends upon as cannon fodder.

Just because they are fucking it up, in no was implies that it can't be fucked up in more ways than that, which is what isolationism would most likely do.
The problem you are pointing out here sounds like the one shown around on this sort of graphs, which in turn implies it started around 70's, not exactly a time period that could be described as USA ending isolationism and starting to mess around with the world.

 

[Bassoe]

It would be working if the wealth and income were distributed more rationally. Instead the billionaires have sucked up the gains and became so greedy that they'd effectively stolen even more from the general public through government policies. They have beggared the country to make themselves obscenely wealthy and then hide their ill-gotten gains abroad:

Super Rich Hide $21 Trillion Offshore, Study Says

It's isn't beaches like this that draw the extremely wealthy to the Cayman Islands. (Photo credit: toddwickersty) A new report finds that around the world the extremely wealthy have accumulated at least $21 trillion in secretive offshore accounts. That's a sum equal to the gross domestic...

www.forbes.com

$21-31 trillion hidden away in the hands of the ultra elite.

Imagine if that money had been actually used to develop the US and ensure that poverty and its effects were mitigated and there was no national debt.

Or in other words, it's a strike. The rich either give the peasants a fair share of the empire's profits or the peasants stop working. Or in this case, fighting, but the principle's the same, the empire and all the wealth it's made its masters is dependent upon large quantities of rust belt peasant cannon fodder.

 

[bintananth]

Just because they are fucking it up, in no was implies that it can't be fucked up in more ways than that, which is what isolationism would most likely do.
The problem you are pointing out here sounds like the one shown around on this sort of graphs, which in turn implies it started around 70's, not exactly a time period that could be described as USA ending isolationism and starting to mess around with the world.

I've read a draft paper which concluded that the Great Depression was partly the result of a sudden and massive wage-productivity gap appearing out of nowhere due to advancing technology.

Basically: it was cheaper to buy a piece of machinery to do the job than it was hire unskilled labourers.

I don't think that paper ever got published.

 

[Agent23]

I've read a draft paper which concluded that the Great Depression was partly the result of a sudden and massive wage-productivity gap appearing out of nowhere due to advancing technology.

Basically: it was cheaper to buy a piece of machinery to do the job than it was hire unskilled labourers.

I don't think that paper ever got published.

The exact details are still uncertain, however The Great Crash of 1929 does give an insight as to how excessive speculation, excessive margin debt and the UK's misguided way in re-implementing the gold standard brought it about.
There is also a pattern linking the blowing up of these bubbles with low interest rates and lots of money printing, have a look at:
Devil Take the Hindmost a pretty nice walk through about a thousand years of financial folly.
In particular, there was a lovely quote from one of the editors of the once prestigious Economist magazine, saying "John Bull can take a lot of things, he can not take 2%..."
This was in relation to the boom and bust of the British railway bubble, with easy money, money printing and artificially low interest rates fomenting a frenzy of risky lending and borrowing and malinvestment.

FDR's programs also had the opposite effect of stopping the depression, they prolonged it.
Frankly, economies go into cycles, trees do not grow to the sky, and the "This time it is different..." mindset is just plain idiotic.
The human beast is a collectivist, pattern matching animal, and there is no worse anguish than knowing that Mr. Jones is making money from some weird crypto coin that was made as a parody of a parody of a parody of bitcoin.

 

[bintananth]

The exact details are still uncertain, however The Great Crash of 1929 does give an insight as to how excessive speculation, excessive margin debt and the UK's misguided way in re-implementing the gold standard brought it about.

I've actually read that book. JK Galbraith is an interesting Economist who has a lot to say.

He also wrote this:

A Tenured Professor - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Iconoclast]

On the other hand they need people to defend the neoliberal status quo, a lot of them the unfortunate above mentioned scapegoats.

Imagine being told that you need to fight to the death to defend a leech that's latched onto your neck, and that it's "only a little blood". That's what defending the neoliberal status quo fundamentally is.

 

[Agent23]

Imagine being told that you need to fight to the death to defend a leech that's latched onto your neck, and that it's "only a little blood". That's what defending the neoliberal status quo fundamentally is.

The leech also insults you for misgendering it, for being a sexist pig for calling her fat and nasty and demands you apologize to it.

 

[Agent23]

I've actually read that book. JK Galbraith is an interesting Economist who has a lot to say.

He also wrote this:

A Tenured Professor - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

He was anti-gold standard from what I read in "The Crash", I also know he was a pretty outspoken liberal, but unlike the post-WWII liberals he doesn't appear to have been nearly as fanatical.