Roundandroundwego · 61-69
Sure. Not cuz humanity hates empire and needs to ditch y'all in your horror shows.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
Oh the irony.
I have seen now quite a number of these upstart "news", or rather "views", videos mostly by small independent companaies, and they are all of low production quality and questionable purpose. The first of these though, giving Chris Hedges' opinions on his own country, is a bit better but...
Who made it and and why?
The text undermines its own credibility by occasional bad language; but similarly, who wrote it, and why?
A tiny detail on the interview video's front page reveals all: funded by the government of the People's Republic of China. I suspect similarly with the text.
The irony is that it describes the United States of America as "imperialist" - well, yes I would agree and that brief clip of President Trump announcing he wants Cuba insuch an aggressive way, sums it up. As Mr. Hedges says, Trumpp lays bare US imperialism.
However, this material is funded by Chian that is itself at least as imperilaist, if not more.
True, less by land and sea seizures than by political and economic control, but imperialists nonetheless. For example, Hedges says the USA tried to take control of Chile for its copper reserves. China now holds most of the world's reserves of the ore; and copper is perhaps second to iron in being the world's most valuable (not expensive, Cu is much costlier than Fe, but valuable) elemental metal. ]
The text is also deeply ironical.
On one hand it implicitly promotes the hard Right-Wing idea popular in America that a nation should not provide health and welfare services for its citizens, that people should sink or swim by their own poverty or wealth.
Yet it accompanies a video by CGTN America, which admits being a tool of the People's Republic of China.
The irony? China is left-wing; though to the extreme. Nations to the left of hard-Right America; from the lightly-socialist democracies around Europe to the extremism of Communist China, do indeed provide such services. (China also uses them as a tool of control - but such abuse is not socialism.)
The PRC calls the USA "imperialist" (I agree!); yet is exactly imperialist herself.
Not by blundering around hurling high-explosives at people, which is the only way America seems to know; and only partly by land-seizure (Tibet) and seizing nearby islands to extend her territorial waters. China's main methods world-wide are by far stealthier political and economic means.
Really, the whole posts suggests having been made by or for the Beijing government.
I have seen now quite a number of these upstart "news", or rather "views", videos mostly by small independent companaies, and they are all of low production quality and questionable purpose. The first of these though, giving Chris Hedges' opinions on his own country, is a bit better but...
Who made it and and why?
The text undermines its own credibility by occasional bad language; but similarly, who wrote it, and why?
A tiny detail on the interview video's front page reveals all: funded by the government of the People's Republic of China. I suspect similarly with the text.
The irony is that it describes the United States of America as "imperialist" - well, yes I would agree and that brief clip of President Trump announcing he wants Cuba insuch an aggressive way, sums it up. As Mr. Hedges says, Trumpp lays bare US imperialism.
However, this material is funded by Chian that is itself at least as imperilaist, if not more.
True, less by land and sea seizures than by political and economic control, but imperialists nonetheless. For example, Hedges says the USA tried to take control of Chile for its copper reserves. China now holds most of the world's reserves of the ore; and copper is perhaps second to iron in being the world's most valuable (not expensive, Cu is much costlier than Fe, but valuable) elemental metal. ]
The text is also deeply ironical.
On one hand it implicitly promotes the hard Right-Wing idea popular in America that a nation should not provide health and welfare services for its citizens, that people should sink or swim by their own poverty or wealth.
Yet it accompanies a video by CGTN America, which admits being a tool of the People's Republic of China.
The irony? China is left-wing; though to the extreme. Nations to the left of hard-Right America; from the lightly-socialist democracies around Europe to the extremism of Communist China, do indeed provide such services. (China also uses them as a tool of control - but such abuse is not socialism.)
The PRC calls the USA "imperialist" (I agree!); yet is exactly imperialist herself.
Not by blundering around hurling high-explosives at people, which is the only way America seems to know; and only partly by land-seizure (Tibet) and seizing nearby islands to extend her territorial waters. China's main methods world-wide are by far stealthier political and economic means.
Really, the whole posts suggests having been made by or for the Beijing government.
View 3 more replies »
SumKindaMunster · 56-60, M
@ArishMell That's partially my point. This isn't a surprise, and it isn't new. So why should this be the moment that brings it all down, when the financial crises of 2020, 2008, 2001, and 1991 didn't?
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@SumKindaMunster It likely depended on enough people with the skill to prevent the situation going that far. We might ask if so, why did they let it happen, but I think many such crashes come rapidly and with little warning, stirred up by very many money-trader spivs around the world all acting in one go in a very short time.
SunshineGirl · 36-40, F
A government is not a business and cannot go bankrupt. The notion is absurd as it is the government that issues currency and regulates its supply through monetary policy. Public welfare is not a "Ponzi scheme", it is a binding social contract that can only be ended by the public who vited for it. And despite the emotive rhetoric, many members of the American public are more than capable of supporting higher tax burden. It is simply a matter of directing higher taxes to those best equipped to bear them.
SunshineGirl · 36-40, F
@swirlie A government may declare a default on its financial obligations and seek to renegotiate debt repayments, but it cannot go "bankrupt" in the way a company does. If it could, Poland would have picked up a few bargains in the post-1991 fire sale.
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@SunshineGirl Just like the Weimar Republic, eh
swirlie · 31-35, F
@SunshineGirl
You are quite right SunshineGirl, the term "bankruptcy" is technically reserved for the corporate world and personal debt obligations of individual citizens.
When a country experiences the equivalent of corporate bankruptcy because it defaults on it's financial obligations, the correct term for a country like the USA or former USSR experiencing this, is called "Sovereign Default".
A sovereign default occurs when a country's government fails to pay back it's national debt on time and in full because it either has no money or it has no institutional investors who are willing to bet the farm on a country's ability to rise up from the ashes it created from the work of it's own hand.
A sovereign default is the country-level equivalent of an individual or a business corporation declaring bankruptcy, but because the debtor in our example is a sovereign nation, the rules, consequences and enforcement mechanisms are entirely different.
The outcome however is the same, meaning the country is declared insolvent which is where former USSR was and which technically is where the USA is right now... insolvent.
You are quite right SunshineGirl, the term "bankruptcy" is technically reserved for the corporate world and personal debt obligations of individual citizens.
When a country experiences the equivalent of corporate bankruptcy because it defaults on it's financial obligations, the correct term for a country like the USA or former USSR experiencing this, is called "Sovereign Default".
A sovereign default occurs when a country's government fails to pay back it's national debt on time and in full because it either has no money or it has no institutional investors who are willing to bet the farm on a country's ability to rise up from the ashes it created from the work of it's own hand.
A sovereign default is the country-level equivalent of an individual or a business corporation declaring bankruptcy, but because the debtor in our example is a sovereign nation, the rules, consequences and enforcement mechanisms are entirely different.
The outcome however is the same, meaning the country is declared insolvent which is where former USSR was and which technically is where the USA is right now... insolvent.
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
jehova · 36-40, M
The. Outlook is bleak. Best to aim for self reliance food water shelter. Stop foreign entanglements cease funding other countries’ wars. Set a retirement age for political office and enforce it. Offshore retirement platforms agricultural production paired with desalination. Simple solutions. Build up not out
MrBrownstone · 46-50, M
Planned to introduce CBDC and digital ID.
swirlie · 31-35, F
Great post, thanks for this one!
Prison1203 · 61-69, M
Everyone is saying this is Trumps fault but let’s see, hasn’t Biden been in office the last four years and we are still working under his budget as of today since last year
MoveAlong · 70-79, M
@Prison1203
Trump says the economy is doing great. Thanks Joe
Everyone is saying this is Trumps fault but let’s see, hasn’t Biden been in office the last four years and we are still working under his budget as of today since last year
Trump says the economy is doing great. Thanks Joe
Prison1203 · 61-69, M
@MoveAlong then what are all you yards saying it’s not?
MoveAlong · 70-79, M
@Prison1203 You can't have it both ways. Trump says the economy is great. You say it's Biden's economy. Your guy is either lying and the economy is bad or telling the truth and crediting Biden?
