The US century is already over. It's just that a lot of US citizens don't see that. De-dollarization will happen when one is a traitor to it's allies
> "Your ‘little men,’ your Nazi friends, were not against National Socialism in principle. Men like me, who were, are the greater offenders, not because we knew better (that would be too much to say) but because we sensed better.
Those who act on behalf of evil are not free from guilt, of course. But the truly damned are those who sense better but look the other way. They walk in the footsteps of the millions who tacitly supported the last time this evil took hold of the world, by not acting.
This entire book, but especially this exerpt, is a must read: https://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.htm
Wow, seems on point.
Wow
"kept us so busy with continuous changes and ‘crises’ and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the ‘national enemies,’ without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us."
Is it not? Quoting myself:
>> are actively undoing the institutions that were instrumental in US economic and political power at that time.
Who is undoing those institutions? That'd be the current administration.
1. Our post WW2 neocolonial activity and the current admins push to sort of blatantly get control over Venezuela and Greenland.
2. Our WW2 manufacturing and export based economy that made us wealthy. Is similar to the current admins push to reform us from importers to exporters using tariffs and rebuilding manufacturing (at least on the surface the execution of this has been terrible).
We were on metal standards for millenia. Governments routinely spent beyond their means, including for imperial aims. This is like four centuries of Roman history.
"In the second century, a modius of wheat (approximately nine liters), during normal times, had sold for ½ Denarius…. the same modius of wheat sold in 335 AD for over 6000 denarii, and in 338 AD for over 10,000" [1].
Note that inflation can also occur with zero debasement if the economy around the fixed money supply collapses. This happened in Rome when Pompey and later Augustus were trashing trade routes. It may have even led to the collapse of India's ancient democracies.
> there were serious political repercussions for it
There weren't. The state historically borrowed from the hilt of the sword. Economic collapse constrained kings and emperors. Not politics.
[1] https://etedge-insights.com/featured-insights/analysis/how-h...
You're hitting the nail on the head. Metalness didn't matter. It was competition in money supplies (and strength of private property).
The fact that a banker in Italy could finance (or not) a war by Great Britain is what restrained governments. Same as in the 1990s, the bond market was king.
The historical record simply does not support the hypothesis that metal-based economies are more peaceful or inflate less than modern fiat-based ones. I'm open to revising that opinion if someone has re-run the data. But everything I've seen comes from blogs that start with the conclusion, itself reached from assumptions from first principles that rarely contemplate how armies were actually financed in antiquity. (Hint: they take your shit. Marketing campaigns sharing the martial term isn't a coincidence. If you're a general in the olden times, you got wealthy through your commission because your army took the enemy's shit. If you needed help getting there, you paid a 'friendly' visit to your nobles.)
Mankind has never seen the collapse of a nuclear powered empire.
Sadly, it may not be possible for a nuclear powered empire to fall without the death of billions...
Mankind is in uncharted territory.
Even Russia never fully fell after the USSR collapsed. Whoever kept the nuclear weapons continued to be a first tier power.
Nothing in human history compares to the present question of how the current empires fall, and if they can even do so safely.
Very sobering times ahead.
Open your history book and read about what happened in 1991.
Industrial scale warfare isn't some secret forgotten by accident.
The current American power-trip fantasy delusion is rightfully scaring the shit out of people, and the scary thing is the people who aren't scared.
It's reaching the point that I think the best thing is for Germany to detonate a nuke between the US and Greenland just to wake up the idiots who think it would be unreasonably difficult.
--
Edit: I see people are misunderstanding me as saying they should use the US bombs stationed there. I'm saying they should build their own - to have people remember that It's not really that hard if you have a functioning industrial sector.
Why exactly do you think Germany is a non-nuclear weapon state?
As pointed out you have built your worldview of drastically misunderstood table stakes.
I do agree Europe should become first mover but they are stuck in a world where they were a dependent and weakened non player for so long now they forgot how.
However, the US is more of a "killer" nowadays. The "killer" is usually more efficient than the "giver", because people value their life more than their wallet. So that's why I think she still has some time left. I don't blame it on Trump though. Being a "giver" is a lot more trouble than being a "killer", and I think the US elites gradually rolled back from the role of "giver" since many years ago. Trump is just here to remind other states that the US can and will be a very efficient killer.
And this is probably the most dangerous time for other states because she cannot afford to lose.
This is the historical equivalent of selective memory, and only really applies to a tiny slice of the planet - western Europe.
A lot happened in the world between 1945 and 1989. Outside of Europe and Japan, most people would probably not be so sympathetic of the US actions during those times. An abridged list:
* Iran 1953 - US and UK overthrow democratically elected PM, install brutal dictator
* Guatemala 1954 - US via CIA overthrows democratically elected president, install brutal dictator
* Brazil 1964, Chile 1973, Argentina 1976 - US supports brutal dictatorships replacing democratically elected governments
* Iran/Iraq 1980s - US funds both sides in the war
etc. This is a very resumed list.
Maybe, maybe not. We're currently the Soviet Union in the 1970s. Gerontocratic. Sclerotic. Hyped up on a new mythology. And economically uncompetitive on several levels, with the future (then computers, now elecrification) sweeping past us to our applause.
Unlike the Soviets, however, we can see it happening and debate it. If '26 and '28 change course, the damage will still be done. But the America Empire is still young. And Trump's stupidest policies–the tariffs, fighting the Fed, Greenland and raising a Gestapo–don't have the support of most Americans. That leaves hope for reform through electoral pressure.
It will take work. But it's as incorrect to assume indefinite American hegemony as it is to preëmptively concede the game.
What's new is finally the federal government pushing back against locales that refuse to allow local police to cooperate with federal law enforcement by means of massive influxes of federal officers to offset the lack of local support.
Also ICE has widespread support for what they are actually doing. Only when you ask manipulative questions that presume something is happening that isn't, do you get poll results that support a widespread dislike for ICE.
Minnesota would like to have a chat with you.
About 40-50% are in support, so the parent's accurate. That roughly matches the political divide across the states.
It makes conservatives who they are - fascist party.
"Terrible things are happening outside. At any time of night and day, poor helpless people are being dragged out of their homes. They're allowed to take only a knapsack and a little cash with them, and even then, they're robbed of these possessions on the way. Families are torn apart; men, women and children are separated. Children come home from school to find that their parents have disappeared. Women return from shopping to find their houses sealed, their families gone."
The Democrats have also had very weak messaging ahead of the midterms. Like, pathetically weak in the current context.
This is to say nothing of the hypothetical where the US makes moves against allies' territories before the midterms.
Read up on the American Whig Party and President Andrew Jackson. Or, more recently, Poland. This is absolutely still in a reversible field.
> Democrats have also had very weak messaging ahead of the midterms
Utterly leaderless. In part because a lot of the party is compromised in having covered up Biden.
I'll read up on the Whig party, though if you have ledes that'd be good to start with, I'd love some links.
You don't. You work around it.
10 to 20% of Americans will agree with just about any stupid proposal. It's idiosyncratic, however, so even if you shut off that position, they still find representation on other issues. (Unless they're single issue. In that case they're either incredibly powerful, but only when it comes to that issue, or worthless.)
I think you’re severely underestimating how much public discourse has already been chilled. There are a lot of things leaders across business or government won’t say any more for fear of being targeted. And let’s be honest the people who rise to the top in America aren’t the selfless kind.
If they were really Gestapo you wouldn't see people tailgate them in a Subaru or scream in their faces
Fine. Brown shirts [1].
Given that the multipolar world is nigh, the only path forward is through. If America and her erstwhile allies are no longer aligned, then any attempt by America to repair this is doomed. Consequently, Trump’s approach is the only way forward.
It's the DoD.
Prior to Trump's actions, the American-led "world order" seemed to work, even if we couldn't get China to agree to a "Bretton Woods 2.0".
Biden tried diplomacy with the EU. He tried to get them to agree to a renewed US-led world order, but it wasn't working. The EU decided to play the US and China against each other to improve its own standing, which is why the US is now moving away from the EU.
I think the US could seriously pull out of NATO and leave the EU to fend off Russia by itself. It'll have to start spending enormous tax dollars on defense and war.
Meanwhile, if the world is truly becoming multi-polar, then the US wants to consolidate power in its own hemisphere. This is why there's all the rhetoric and action on Venezuela, Cuba, Greenland, Canada, etc. The US will keep Chinese ports, basing, and trade completely out and secure the trade routes for when the Arctic opens up. It recently changed control over the Panama Canal, and the DoD is dead serious about taking Greenland and maintaining complete hemispheric control.
With whatever energy the US has left, it will dedicate to Asia. It will strengthen alliances and project power there instead of dealing with Europe.
The world is going to be a much more violent place without hegemony. Free trade doesn't exist in that type of world. The US realizes this and is playing 50 years ahead. None of the nice words matter when the energy, trade, and economic lines are redrawn.
People like to say the US is led by lawyers and China is led by scientists and engineers. This is wrong. The US is led by war generals and intelligence. The career DoD folks are the ones impressing upon the administration to make these moves.
To be clear: I hate this. I loved the world I grew up in. I think we're headed for a violent world that could easily erupt into war. I don't like it.
This is sanewashig this whole thing. The fact is, the US is moving away from the EU because Trump doesn't like democracies. It's that simple. You have a large percentage of your population in what is essentially a cult and you have givem them the reigns.
This was being called back during the Biden admin and before Trump even ran again.
Back during the Obama admin, even!
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/no-piv...
https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/us-pivot-asia/
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/europe-biggest-...
If the US can't build strong coalitions with Europe, it wants to spend its energy elsewhere.
Even pop-geopolitik wonk Peter Zeihan was pointing this out during Covid. I can't find his videos, but this has been top of mind for a lot of people for a very long time. These are anti-Trump people, too.
Multipolarity means instability, violence, fights over resources, fights over trade. Post-WWII was unusually (relatively) stable.
The US can turtle up, just like it did before WWII. It doesn't share a land border with any other major powers, unlike European and Asian countries. It commands the two oceans on its sides (and soon Arctic), and doesn't need anyone else - this was the US' defense posture since its founding.
But, anyway, good luck. You'll need it.
These are military decisions. These are 50-year plans.
Here I was 10 months ago and two years ago saying the same thing:
Trump was told and encouraged to want this by the little birdies at the DoD.
Can you elaborate on that? It seems to me it "wasn't working" mostly in the sense that Trump got elected again.
> The EU decided to play the US and China against each other to improve its own standing, which is why the US is now moving away from the EU.
Seems like confusing cause and effect. The EU is drifting away from the US towards China because the US pushed them away.
> The world is going to be a much more violent place without hegemony. Free trade doesn't exist in that type of world. The US realizes this and is playing 50 years ahead. None of the nice words matter when the energy, trade, and economic lines are redrawn.
This is happening largely because of the US, although they stand to lose by replacing a world order that benefits them with a world order that benefits China and Russia. Well maybe the US will become sufficiently like China and Russia that they can benefit too. But even with a gradual loss of hegemony there was nothing inevitable about a transition to the law of the jungle and it's doubtful that the net result will be positive for the US.
> People like to say the US is led by lawyers and China is led by scientists and engineers. This is wrong. The US is led by war generals and intelligence.
I think the relevant distinction is that the US is democratic while China is authoritarian. But the current US government wants to be authoritarian.
> The career DoD folks are the ones impressing upon the administration to make these moves.
Again a reversal of cause and effect? I doubt old career DoD folks like the current developments. But the current government might give a bigger role to the war generals.
How so? What actions did the EU take?
You don't think the declaration of himself as dictator and the immediate threats against EU allies might have changed EU attitudes at all?
Disagree. If US pulls out of NATO, most likely scenario is EU continue to concede to Russia. I think EU will concede on Greenland too, but likely won't do it without any military action (unclear whether that will trigger nuclear escalation and how that can end).
If there were a path back, there’d be a point. But in this discussion, everything has already happened. There’s not much point in saying “if you hadn’t”. Well, Trump did. Having done what he did, nothing to do now but to go full bore.
Now that we are on a war footing, potentially with our erstwhile allies who have no interest in renewing the alliance given present conditions, the only path to preserve US control is aggression.
Think of it like this: America fucked up, and maybe with other allies at other times we could have gone back to the old ways. But these aren't those allies and this isn't those times. So we close doors on old friendships and go at it the other way.
What makes us think this is possible?
It may not be possible for a nuclear powered empire to fall without the death of billions.
Mankind is in uncharted territory.
Even Russia never fully fell after the USSR collapsed. Whoever kept the nuclear weapons continued to be a first tier power.
Nothing in human history compares to the present question of how the current empires fall. And if they can even do so safely.
There is some probability that US global influence does significantly decline but I wouldn't hold my breath.
I would like for the US to continue being a beacon of freedom where people can come and build great lives.
But that is not the direction we are going, and one might reasonably forecast that no country can maintain indefinite dominance. Paul Kennedy wrote "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" almost 40 years ago. Regression to the mean and all that, but also, great powers tend to overstep.
Your first sentence says "not true". Your second sentence says "true".
Your dislike of the current US regime/behavior causes you to forcast the decline of US influence. I'm not saying you should like current US behavior, just that there isn't good evidence for any decline.
These things are hard to predict. The most likely situation is not decline: it is continuity, where the US retains its global influence for the time being.
https://www.readtheline.ca/p/matt-gurney-we-will-never-fucki...