One of the major reasons the US became a super power was because of Europe essentially bankrupting themselves over two world wars. Especially during WW1, where we essentially came in to play mop-up as the deciding factor of winning. So as we see similar arms races and conflicts ramping up over the globe, would a similar policy play out in our favor again?

tough choice when your options are to fund unpopular proxy wars, or to go turtle mode and let the russia-iran-china axis consolidate power against the u.s.'s interests abroad

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

One of the major reasons the US became a super power was because of Europe essentially bankrupting themselves over two world wars. Especially during WW1, where we essentially came in to play mop-up as the deciding factor of winning. So as we see similar arms races and conflicts ramping up over the globe, would a similar policy play out in our favor again?

---

Check your history…

Chilean Crisis
Venezuela Crisis
Spanish-American War
Boxer Rebellion
Open Door Policy
Mexican Revolution
Nicaragua
Haiti
Morocco
Russo-Japanese War Mediation

The US has been globalizing since 1890…is what it is.

It depends. Should you sleep through the night iif someone's house on the other side of town is on fire? Sure. Should you stay asleep if the house is next door? Two house down? End of the block? The problem is establishing a rational zone of interest, something we suck at.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

One of the major reasons the US became a super power was because of Europe essentially bankrupting themselves over two world wars. Especially during WW1, where we essentially came in to play mop-up as the deciding factor of winning. So as we see similar arms races and conflicts ramping up over the globe, would a similar policy play out in our favor again?

---

I think that much of what led to us becoming a super power is that we were relatively unscathed the destruction going on in Europe. We could turn our talents to producing. That carried on after the war when Europe and Asia had to be rebuilt -- we were the ones doing the rebuilding and we didn't do it for free.

Old McDonald said:

---

tough choice when your options are to fund unpopular proxy wars, or to go turtle mode and let the russia-iran-china axis consolidate power against the u.s.'s interests abroad

---

Biden is the Head Turtle in Chief when it comes to action. He is all mumble, no rumble.

Anyone else read Zeihan? Makes a pretty good case about how deglobalization is inevitable and the US will be in a very good position as long as we don't screw it up.

It's already been the US policy over the last decade or so to move out of the Middle East.

As the US takes a step back, international shipping will become much more tricky and risky to insure. I did not realize how close the entire insurance system almost went down during the Iran-Iraq War in the 80s because of those two relatively small countries stealing cargo vessels. Reagan pulled a rabbit out of his hat to stabilize the system, but that US guarantee is not permanent nor should it be.

After the war economic globalization became a thing simply to counter the Soviets. The US did not need it for economic reasons, we needed it to keep the Soviets from taking over Western Europe. We guaranteed security of the shipping routes for our partners so long as we got to determine their security posture and helped present a united front. Bretton Woods set the stage for the economic miracle of the last 70 years.

The entire system of hyperglobalization is possible because the US secures it and set the rules. Ironically, China depends on this system more than anyone else.

If and when we pull back, it's going to get very chaotic in the rest of the world. A lot of them already see the writing on the wall and are posturing.

Do you really believe that our businesses were selling merchandise and services to Europe because to counter the Soviets?

No, that was a huge side effect benefit of the system we set up. The system was about security and the economics followed. It worked out very, very well.

They needed a market to sell their goods and also needed a bunch of investment to rebuild. We needed a strong buffer between the Soviets and the Atlantic Ocean that would provide an economic and security counterweight. Same thing in the Pacific.

Not a Bot said:

---

After the war economic globalization became a thing simply to counter the Soviets. The US did not need it for economic reasons, we needed it to keep the Soviets from taking over Western Europe. We guaranteed security of the shipping routes for our partners so long as we got to determine their security posture and helped present a united front. Bretton Woods set the stage for the economic miracle of the last 70 years.

The entire system of hyperglobalization is possible because the US secures it and set the rules. Ironically, China depends on this system more than anyone else.

If and when we pull back, it's going to get very chaotic in the rest of the world. A lot of them already see the writing on the wall and are posturing.

---

This is more of an argument FOR isolation. Retreats from hyperglobalization would be a positive thing and disruption of international shipping is perfectly fine with me.

The US is not uniquely dependent on other countries for ANYTHING. We can be completely self-sufficient. Other large global powers cannot, whether it be oil, protein, grain, water, etc.

So let the barbarious ****s in China, ME and Russia have at it for a while.

I was thinking about this a lot over the last few weeks. We are really wanting out of the Middle East.

We are wanting out to the point where we are negotiating with Venezuela to get their oil production going again.

What's interesting is Zeihan claims the Biden people currently in office and the Obama people really butted heads on this topic, especially when it came to Iran. The Biden National Security people hated the Iran deal. Sullivan supported approaching Iran to form a deal in general, but Jarrett, Obama and Kerry got completely out negotiated and instead of taking baby steps they gave them way too much and screwed everything up.

Biden people will never admit this, but they were not disappointed when Trump pulled out. It's giving them the opportunity to renegotiate, although I question whether it's a good idea it's even be talking with them at all.

fka ftc said:

---

So let the barbarious ****s in China, ME and Russia have at it for a while.

---

Absolutely not. A more barbaric world is not a better world.

TriAg2010 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

So let the barbarious ****s in China, ME and Russia have at it for a while.

---

Absolutely not. A more barbaric world is not a better world.

---

Agree. Hence let them cull their herds on one another without our blood and treasure. When they have reduced their numbers, we can discuss being civilized again.

Not a Bot said:

---

I was thinking about this a lot over the last few weeks. We are really wanting out of the Middle East.

We are wanting out to the point where we are negotiating with Venezuela to get their oil production going again.

What's interesting is Zeihan claims the Biden people currently in office and the Obama people really butted heads on this topic, especially when it came to Iran. The Biden National Security people hated the Iran deal. Sullivan supported approaching Iran to form a deal in general, but Jarrett, Obama and Kerry got completely out negotiated and instead of taking baby steps they gave them way too much and screwed everything up.

Biden people will never admit this, but they were not disappointed when Trump pulled out. It's giving them the opportunity to renegotiate, although I question whether it's a good idea it's even be talking with them at all.

---

But Biden people went right back at it, including Kerry who Biden brought back into the fold under "climate" nonsense.

Only reason Biden would be against an Iran deal back then would be if he thought it would cut into his Ukraine / China grift.

yes

I can't remember where I hear anything anymore because I've consumed so much on this topic over the last few weeks, but I have seen from multiple sources that the Sullivan/Blinken camp (Biden's guys) were very much at odds with the Obama underlings when it came to the Iran deal. I'm not really sure who in the Obama camp negotiated what.

Yea. It's better to be defense oriented self sufficient isolationist.

Fight me.

Oh not trying to disagree. I do the same thing consuming.

With Biden, it is impossible to know who is pulling the strings.

Sometimes you think he is lucid, others it appears Obama is at the helm, then at times it appears the woke mafia running the White Nuthouse just pick an agenda that feels good.

I think it was Klain running domestic. Sullivan running international. Not sure who would be doing the domestic stuff now. I think the difference between Biden, Trump, and Obama is that Biden perhaps due to health issues or maybe it's his personality, seems to be letting other people do some work without bei g overbearing. That is a good thing.

Terrified of Kamala Harris and the people who are willing to stick around with her.

fka ftc said:

---

TriAg2010 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

So let the barbarious ****s in China, ME and Russia have at it for a while.

---

Absolutely not. A more barbaric world is not a better world.

---

Agree. Hence let them cull their herds on one another without our blood and treasure. When they have reduced their numbers, we can discuss being civilized again.

---

So pretend we stay out of it...what happens?

TriAg2010 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

So let the barbarious ****s in China, ME and Russia have at it for a while.

---

Absolutely not. A more barbaric world is not a better world.

---

Short of them using nukes on each other who cares? There are thousand year old rivalries we've kept at bay for 80 years but it's cost us dearly and it's time to stop. If they want to fight then let them fight. It's not our problem. No nukes or we interfere.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

TriAg2010 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

So let the barbarious ****s in China, ME and Russia have at it for a while.

---

Absolutely not. A more barbaric world is not a better world.

---

Agree. Hence let them cull their herds on one another without our blood and treasure. When they have reduced their numbers, we can discuss being civilized again.

---

So pretend we stay out of it...what happens?

---

Knowing this response will be back to back with my last one odds are someone uses a nuke to "settle" an ancient rivalry. I'd love for us to be more isolationist, I simply don't care about their hatred for each other, it's not our problem. And I don't care if they sort it out on the battlefield…except for nukes. I just think there's too many of those in too many hands and it's going to happen without our efforts to keep those out of play.

We don't need to be isolationists, but if we're going to be the world's policeman we need a military ready and prepared for 2-3 major conflicts at a time. With our emphasis on wokeness and transgenderism in our armed forces that is not possible currently.

fka ftc said:

---

Not a Bot said:

---

After the war economic globalization became a thing simply to counter the Soviets. The US did not need it for economic reasons, we needed it to keep the Soviets from taking over Western Europe. We guaranteed security of the shipping routes for our partners so long as we got to determine their security posture and helped present a united front. Bretton Woods set the stage for the economic miracle of the last 70 years.

The entire system of hyperglobalization is possible because the US secures it and set the rules. Ironically, China depends on this system more than anyone else.

If and when we pull back, it's going to get very chaotic in the rest of the world. A lot of them already see the writing on the wall and are posturing.

---

The US is not uniquely dependent on other countries for ANYTHING. We can be completely self-sufficient

---

Long time listener. First time caller here.


This is true in a long term perspective or simply looking at access to resources but I think you're underestimating the disruption and pain meaningful pullback/deglobalization would cause to numerous industries domestically. Many for a decade or more.

We have built a vast and intricate supply chain and many sectors of the economy would tank immediately.

If we were to really implement a strategy like this we would have to bring back all manufacturing to us soil or Mexico asap and do so before any move like that.

That alone puts a long timeline on any such move to deglobalization of significance.

Then throw in the climate change/carbon emission bs of all that manufacturing and hyper polarized politics that comes with it.

It's just not that simple I guess is my overall point.

WestHoustonAg79 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Not a Bot said:

---

After the war economic globalization became a thing simply to counter the Soviets. The US did not need it for economic reasons, we needed it to keep the Soviets from taking over Western Europe. We guaranteed security of the shipping routes for our partners so long as we got to determine their security posture and helped present a united front. Bretton Woods set the stage for the economic miracle of the last 70 years.

The entire system of hyperglobalization is possible because the US secures it and set the rules. Ironically, China depends on this system more than anyone else.

If and when we pull back, it's going to get very chaotic in the rest of the world. A lot of them already see the writing on the wall and are posturing.

---

The US is not uniquely dependent on other countries for ANYTHING. We can be completely self-sufficient

---

Long time listener. First time caller here.


This is true in a long term perspective or simply looking at access to resources but I think you're underestimating the disruption and pain meaningful pullback/deglobalization would cause to numerous industries domestically. Many for a decade or more.

We have built a vast and intricate supply chain and many sectors of the economy would tank immediately.

If we were to really implement a strategy like this we would have to bring back all manufacturing to us soil or Mexico asap and do so before any move like that.

That alone puts a long timeline on any such move to deglobalization of significance.

Then throw in the climate change/carbon emission bs of all that manufacturing and hyper polarized politics that comes with it.

It's just not that simple I guess is my overall point.

---

I think most of agree with you buts it's happening regardless of the pain it takes to get there. It's not happening because we're making it happen but rather because it has to. China can't be the worlds low cost provider of unlimited labor anymore, simply put they can't meet demand which means that production must go somewhere else that can.

Ive been telling clients for three years now to expect a consumer recession and a commercial explosion precisely because of what you describe. Supply chains are going to break down while at the same time we see rapid expansion of the physical plant in this country and others in this part of the world. There's not really another option at this point.

TriAg2010 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

So let the barbarious ****s in China, ME and Russia have at it for a while.

---

Absolutely not. A more barbaric world is not a better world.

---

Sorry but this reads like the Californians saying "we need to do everything we can to prevent forest fires"

It's impossible to be isolationist when you're one of the major superpowers on the world stage.

Is this a global warming thread?

ts5641 said:

---

We don't need to be isolationists, but if we're going to be the world's policeman we need a military ready and prepared for 2-3 major conflicts at a time. With our emphasis on wokeness and transgenderism in our armed forces that is not possible currently.

---

I'm sure the military industrial complex is continuing to put our tax dollars at work to make all the equipment we need.

Or do you think all those companies fired all their employees and closed shop a few years ago when those woke stories came out?

The key component is putting our interests first and foremost at all times. We do way too much for way too many for free and when it isn't in our interest. We need to quit apologizing for being strong. Be a broker more often.

For instance we shouldn't be giving Israel money, we should however be more than happy to sell them just about any hardware they want and be willing to offer our services for a price for things they don't have. We should be selling Taiwan just about anything they want as well and offering our services for concessions. Same thing with Europe and Ukraine.

Our problem is we do way too much stuff for free. You should only do that if you want to be an empire and take over everything. Instead we just prop up others and then let them screw us over whenever they want because we like being the nice guy. We should focus on being the strong guy and not apologizing for it.

We do nothing and this bogus population problem solves itself.

aggie93 said:

---

The key component is putting our interests first and foremost at all times. We do way too much for way too many for free and when it isn't in our interest. We need to quit apologizing for being strong. Be a broker more often.

For instance we shouldn't be giving Israel money, we should however be more than happy to sell them just about any hardware they want and be willing to offer our services for a price for things they don't have. We should be selling Taiwan just about anything they want as well and offering our services for concessions. Same thing with Europe and Ukraine.

Our problem is we do way too much stuff for free. You should only do that if you want to be an empire and take over everything. Instead we just prop up others and then let them screw us over whenever they want because we like being the nice guy. We should focus on being the strong guy and not apologizing for it.

---

What are our interests?

K2-HMFIC said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

The key component is putting our interests first and foremost at all times. We do way too much for way too many for free and when it isn't in our interest. We need to quit apologizing for being strong. Be a broker more often.

For instance we shouldn't be giving Israel money, we should however be more than happy to sell them just about any hardware they want and be willing to offer our services for a price for things they don't have. We should be selling Taiwan just about anything they want as well and offering our services for concessions. Same thing with Europe and Ukraine.

Our problem is we do way too much stuff for free. You should only do that if you want to be an empire and take over everything. Instead we just prop up others and then let them screw us over whenever they want because we like being the nice guy. We should focus on being the strong guy and not apologizing for it.

---

What are our interests?

---

Of course that is debatable. That said I would start with National Security, US Trade and Prosperity, and Quality of Life and Freedom for US Citizens.

Thus if a country is threatening us, especially in a direct way, we should take action. Not necessarily military action but we should use our power and influence. If it doesn't impact us though we should stay out of it or take a neutral stance. We should use our military strength and power to get favorable trade deals and if we are providing security for a country it should come at a steep price for them. Internally laws should always favor US Citizens for things like college admissions and costs, business and land ownership, and legal protections in general.

Those things are no brainers to most of the world but not in the US. Thus we constantly get taken advantage of. We don't need to be an empire but we should get the most out of our strengths.

Many people don't realize there is a country that actually modeled their system after the US Founders and have prospered immensely because they stuck to it much better than we have. They have avoided wars for 200 years. They are extremely wealthy and have one of the highest standards of living on Earth. They have massive benefits for their Citizens and a high quality of life. They have one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world. They have extremely low crime rates. They have a very weak Central government and a rotating President who has minimal power. They have remained neutral in spite of many times where it may have benefited them to break from that policy. They have done all of this in spite of having very limited natural resources and a geography that has many natural challenges.

The country is Switzerland.