ericmay

I really have no idea what you are talking about. It seems like you are just stringing together a few incoherent sentences and then drawing a faulty conclusion.

If you have a specific question I can answer for you or something you actually want to talk about, let me know.

The only thing I’m seeing are made up analogies.

Your framing is wrong, for example. You’re implying we are doing something wrong or provocative or that we are stirring up trouble, but the opposite is true. We are responding to provocations. If anything the what you wrote here would apply to China. Why is China hitting us with a crowbar (industrial overcapacity)? Now they’ve stirred the hornets nest.

Well it's not a facade. It's just the factual reason. I don't even think that's a controversial point.

The EU will take action too. Germany isn't going to allow its automobile industry to be hollowed out. [1]

The American car market 17% of the market with ~4% of global population seems very easily sustainable. A country like Japan who operates and is expanding in the United States [2] runs strongly counter to your point of view here.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2026/09/30/china-warns-europe-increases... (just a recent article, you get the picture - Europe will protect its markets too)

[2] Just an example: https://www.dispatch.com/story/business/manufacturing/2026/0...

Apologies for responding to you so quickly I just happened to hop on here shortly after your post.

I think what might be materially different was that while Japan was considered an economic threat, in some ways, similar to China, Japan was also an American ally. It's just a different fundamental level of trust and so things like joint partnerships are more possible. China, unfortunately under the yoke of the CCP, did not liberalize to an extent that was hoped for after the US advocated for them to join the World Trade Organization.

We really did them a huge favor there and it's so unfortunate that they used that against us when nobody in America has any issues or qualms with China besides their actions that they've taken largely on their own and without any prodding from the West.

Even in the case of Hong Kong and Taiwan, there is an easy to see world where China had democratized and nobody in the west would have given a damn about reunification, nor would we really need to have our military built up in the region.

North Korea was another problem there, which we can owe the existence of that pariah state and the wonton destruction it has imposed upon the people held hostage there, at the feet of the Chinese Communist Party and of course the Soviet Union too. Communists and other authoritarian ideological adherents did a loooooooooot of damage to the world and are still wreaking havoc.

> Have you read about the Assyrians? Those early empires were nasty.

Barely. My knowledge of ancient empires and peoples before the Greeks is rudimentary at best, and that may be a charitable description.

The more I've learned and read the more I've forgotten and the more I've learned I don't know. But I do read about these kinds of dynasties, civilizations, empires, and peoples and it is endlessly fascinating.

As I have become a little bit older and well traveled I keep coming back to the Normans. What they built and the effect they have had on civilization development in Europe and beyond is amazing! I've seen it in France, but the Bayeux Tapestry is, in my mind, one of the premier cultural artifacts of all of civilization (I'm not doing to disagree with anyone who suggests otherwise, feel free to :) ) and it would have been great to see it while it temporarily resides at the British Museum but alas work and life here in the United States takes precedence.

Are you suggesting that you disagree with the author's thesis and that iron wasn't a contributing factor or the major one?

Well all of civilization and society is based on violence and coercion to some extent. I'm not sure that small tribes polities were any less violent than larger empires, and I'd generally have a bias that larger empires were more peaceful per-capita because if you are the king war is tiresome and threatening. Better to be at peace.

I'm also not sure about your suggestion. Yes small polities had the means to defend themselves, but the pharaoh's army is much larger and you're definitely going to die if he shows up and you fight back. So why wouldn't the pharaoh have shown up to put down a rebellion? Time and time again in the history of the region a king, pharaoh, or other despot would make examples of rebels, put down rebels, and march armies up and down the region to ensure fealty and assign minor lords to protect a region. They could have found the smelters and destroyed them or seized them, those working on it could have been killed.

I'm just not sure that this democratization of violence is the answer. Though it may be a key contributor. Curious about your thoughts or others. Incredibly fascinating topic.

I don't think it's fair to only point at alleged Republican roadblocks, though those can certainly be important, you also have to point out that European, Japanese, and American automakers (to a lesser extent) who simply failed to create and market affordable electric vehicles with a good design. Tesla was the only one that really did it and you can see a number on the road. Though Elon screwed up the brand. We've had a few other startups (Rivian, Lucid, &c.) and that's great but it's a bit of a chicken-egg problem.

Unfortunately because of China's economic policy we can't allow the import of their cars because what's more important than electrification is defending a manufacturing base and jobs.

Fun article. I think that there is a lot of interesting information here that would help explain what we saw with the Bronze Age Collapse, though I would submit that this is just another of the multiple factors that led to the collapse. Maybe a drought occurs, folks turn to iron weapons, and then take over another town or village for their resources, and so on.

This could lead to supply chain collapses and such. Maybe just general destabilization and raids and such sort of collapsed the larger empires. But at the same time, those larger empires would also have had access to iron, so why couldn't they by matter of numerical superiority, access to greater resources, tactics and military organization, and more simply, overwhelm smaller armies or bands utilizing the same technology and restore order or at least defend themselves?

I just started reading Conrad Black's historical series and in the Egyptian chapter and also the Assyria/Babylonia chapter he references the historical accounts where time and time again Egyptian forces led by the pharaoh would march into the broader Middle East to restore order. Why couldn't they continue to do that?

> This is why the renminbi isn't catching on, despite China's power.

Well it's part of it. The other part is China does not want the value of its currency to rise and as an export-oriented economy they have a desire to manipulate their currency to keep it lower to ensure exports are highly competitive. That's not an allegation or a conspiracy or anything, but a policy choice and a fact. Being the dominant reserve currency as the USD is (remember it's not the only reserve currency) has a lot of benefits but some drawbacks too.

I don't think that American limited government is looking shaky right now. I agree Congress is becoming increasingly worthless but it's something that can be fixed if we want to. I also would suggest not being confused about Trump does big headline thing as a representation that America's government is shaky or something. He has pushed boundaries, but some of those boundaries are quite literally up for interpretation and while he may push those boundaries he also doesn't go around and advertise all the court or legislative set backs that have occurred.

The Iran war is actually a decent example - he does not have an authorization to use force beyond the limit authorized by Congress. While we're conducting limited retaliatory strikes (Congress wouldn't disagree with doing so except maybe the pro-ayatollah/anti-liberal faction (Congresswoman Ilhan Omar for example) and engaging in a naval blockade, Trump has had to follow the rule of law here and step back more grand ambitions and plans. Now of course he may do something and we'll have to see how the system responds, but everyday law and order and such is proceeding as it has for quite some time. To be frank, it's actually a little bit worse but that's not really due to Trump so much as it is to policing failures and anti-social behavior we're tolerating when we shouldn't.

> The world bought only 20% as many treasury bonds in the past year as in the year before that. This is what a slow decoupling from the US reserve currency looks like.

That's not what a decoupling looks like. Investors are probably just not buying because they know rates are going to go up. The Federal Reserve already strongly signaled another rate hike by end of year. Why would you buy something today that you can wait and buy for a better price later?

Second, if you want to make an argument about interest rates or the debt, you first have to make that argument and resolve it for the UK, Italy, France, and others.

Third, the USD is just the dominant reserve currency. It's not the only one. A reserve currency is just one that banks hold in reserve. The reason the US is involved in the Middle East is to protect the Petro-dollar which generally "requires" oil purchases to be settled in dollars. The trade off is we keep Iran in check from destroying the gulf countries.

> The US is the most oil-dependent country (although all western countries are quite dependent on it) and it cut off its own supply of oil.

This doesn't make any sense. The US is also the largest oil and gas producing country in the world. Even for the Strait of Hormuz and Red Sea you can read for yourself that the US has been able to break through and Saudi Arabia has quickly repaired the east-west pipeline and 3.5+ million barrels are flowing through there now (IIRC 60% or so of pre-attack volume). Either way, most of those flows go to Europe and Asia, not the US. So while the US is oil dependent (all countries are) I don't think your assertion is entirely accurate.

> It's been unable to manufacture anything effectively for a while now as all the money gets siphoned off corruptly (identical to Russia in the Ukraine war), not even the weapons used in Israel.

That doesn't make any sense either. We manufacture all kinds of things, including incredibly advanced equipment. We make airplanes, we make semiconductors, pharmaceutical goods.

> What else is there to being an empire? Its nuclear aircraft carriers - with no aircraft since they run on oil?

If we don't have oil neither does anyone else. Except that we do have oil so our nuclear powered aircraft carriers would just use our own oil for the jets.

America has not just a lot more people, but a lot more immigrants, refugees, and more.

In a more homogenous society, such as Poland’s in comparison to the United States, it also in my observation trends to be easier for wealth distribution to flatten.

Maybe the US has more kids per capita too which would also affect that value depending on how it is being measured. Not to say that anything is being hidden there, just something to think about that may make you interpret the data differently or think about it differently.

> Less obvious where to run to these days as the US not-an-empire looks like it may crumble.

How are you supposing that it looks like the US may crumble? I don’t understand where these kinds of comments come from, aside from perhaps verbalizing something one might want to see instead of what is factually true.

But I mentioned other areas where crime occurs but is not reported. It has quite literally happened to me. Crime can be down simply because it is underreported. Here's another example. At my house someone stole a package, I have them on video because they're stupid and that was sent to police and maybe that was solved, idk. But it's quite a bit of work to submit a police report. My local police office has file size limits. I had to go and adjust a video, make sure it's in the proper format, and of course fill out the form, describe everything. If it's a lower value item someone may say forget it, this is too much work.

Part of the survey response you are seeing is that while crime itself may be down, citizens are uncomfortable and feel less safe (I provided an example that you can come and see for yourself any time of day) and I believe that helps to explain the discrepancy in the data you are seeing. How do you account for increases in crime when someone runs a red light (that's a crime) that simply is not reported? What am I going to do, call the local police? Are they going to actually do anything?

Data is only just one piece of the puzzle. Arguably not the most important in many circumstances. If the data is telling you crime is down, but people feel as though it is not, that doesn't necessarily mean "right-wing propaganda", and for someone who is inclined as you are to look at data you would think you wouldn't immediately draw such a conclusion and instead you would want to question your data collection process, the methods you are using, whether or not specific groups have stories they want to tell.

> You're not really talking about actual crime--you're talking about your own perception/feelings.

> By all measurements and all sources of data available, violent crime has been absolutely plummeting since around 1991. Property crime is plummeting in direct parallel.

> Yet, nearly every year, a large majority of people (~66% or so) who are polled believe that crime is higher this year than it was last year.

Maybe the majority is right and your data is wrong?

> But I chalk that up to having a conscience.

"Someone disagrees with me, therefore I have a conscience and they don't". C'mon. That's boring.

Anyway, if you are asking me I'm conservative about some things, liberal about others. Feel free to ask me if you are curious. I'm anti-MAGA, but I'm also anti-DSA. I'm anti-woke and anti-Proud boys too. All of these groups of small-minded people are annoying and destructive and generally produce bad policy and the ways in which our society and government have become dysfunctional is in a large part because of people who identify with these groups.

Part of the reason for my response was due to the path the OP was already going down in their earlier comments. The drug addict on the corner yelling at people and walking with his dick out (yes that's real shit that happens where I live) doesn't show up in the data, yet it doesn't make me feel safe. Yet the OP seems to suggest that they have no reason for someone to not feel safe and it's all right-wing talking points. The next step is to make it my fault somehow. It's a very tried and true trope that I've seen over and over.

Sure whatever but I was talking about bad employees and people who don't do anything at work. They'd probably be most closely aligned to your grifter category or maybe a cheat.

Right - but American sanctions have a big effect. What happens when that power goes away? Who is going to sanction Russia?

You can complain about well America is sanctioning countries I disagree with, but it also affects countries you would agree with. When we don't have sanctions power perhaps military force gets used more.

Regardless of what happens both the EU and America are still within each other's spheres. That's not going to change anytime soon. We've gone through much worse.

Well I agree with you that white collar crime counts a lot here too (hello 2008).

But I'd disagree about but also those who come in to your firm that you’ve worked for for 8 years and fired you without cause. There are also plenty of people who don't do anything and siphon off value so if you wanted to use that example I think you have to use the thieves and bums who don't do anything too.

> Why are you taking it so personally

Because it pisses me off and it's stupid. I don't like this anti-social behavior. You think folks shouldn't be pissed off about it?

> It’s funny you say you’re leftwing

I'm not left-wing.

> but this comment screams that you’re deep into the rabbit hole being pushed by the right that there should be no personal accountability for societal failures.

If my comments mean I'm right-wing, you've found your problem. Your perception is really far to one direction and doesn't reflect how people actually think. It's kind of like an Internet view.

> The same rabbit hole that is pushing “uncomfy” topics out of schools so white kids don’t feel guilty about slavery.

I don't feel any guilt about slavery lol. I don't think anyone else needs to either.

Well no I don't think we're disagreeing, it's more about terms that are not captured in measurements, reports, things like that.

The example I gave is just an example. It's real no matter what the data says. When folks experience that, they experience it and it informs their opinions about the rates of crime and how safe an area is. I can tell you I believe the area I live in is safe, but with the introduction of these anti-social behaviors it is less safe regardless of the level of reported crime.

I think statistically the numbers show there is much less crime than there has been, but the statistics aren't perfect. For example, can you provide a report or measurement that measures how unsafe people feel when they walk by a pile of needles and have a homeless person screaming at them? If you can't, then you can clearly see there are flaws in the measurements that need to be addressed.

Chalking it up to right wing propaganda just doesn't help here and only serves to lose votes. I'm not "right-wing". I live in a city. I walk by this stuff. I don't feel safe of comfortable walking by these people. I also don't think my quality of life is improved when I have to go ask someone to unlock a case so I can buy a razor blade or something. If your metrics aren't capturing that then that would explain the disconnect you are seeing.

Including Russia, right?

> I was perhaps trying to make the point that powerful authoritarians like Trump

He's authoritarian in many respects but he is still constrained by the rule of law. Where he loses legal cases he is forced to follow the law. He may have workarounds or gotchas or try again, but by and large I have yet to see any clear law-breaking violations. There is corruption which I see plain as day, but that's separate from this view of Authoritarianism since you can be corrupt without being an authoritarian.

> But the war with Iran, the Venezuela thing - they're international crimes the like of which a non-trivial proportion of the world considers the ICC to have jurisdiction over.

This is why the US doesn't recognize the ICC. Neither of these are international crimes. Maduro himself was referred to the ICC by other neighboring countries and there is an alleged sealed indictment by the ICC itself.

Should the US have referred the Iranian government to the ICC for funding terrorists in the Middle East? What about violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? What would the ICC do? Did the ICC indict and try to arrest the members of Hamas who killed all those people in 2023? Maybe they did, but what were they going to do about it?

Do you live in a city? I do. Come to Columbus and stand at the bus stop not a half mile away from my home where people are tweaking out and walking around in the middle of the street, there are piles of garbage everywhere, drivers are blasting through red lights, and everything at the CVS is locked up. Last week someone stole a car and drove it through the best park in the city and ran over a historic marker. I guess it's not a big deal right? We're probably privileged to have a park. Yea? Jeez what were the social circumstances that led these people to steal this car and drive through a park. Society has failed them. It's my fault they did it I bet? That's the message that the DSA and more left-leaning groups are sending to Americans and most are seeing through the bullshit.

Also your comment about "shrinking population" - you are referring to white Americans right? You're welcome to go look for yourself to see Trump's election results from the last election and see how he increased voter share across blacks and hispanics (and maybe more). How is this "shrinking population" happening when Trump also had the most votes of any president in American history? Maybe the population isn't shrinking in the way that you think.

If you want to know why Democrats are losing elections despite it being so obvious they shouldn't, your comments and rejection of the reality that many Americans face every day is precisely why. And before you try and accuse me of being some Trump sycophant I have voted for Obama twice, Clinton, Biden, and then Harris and will be voting for Sherrod Brown and Amy Acton here in Ohio. Denying reality because you think that the picture other Americans see must be some right-wing propaganda feed is confusing you. It's simply not accurate. Most Americans do not agree with your point of view. If the Democrats want to start winning elections they better come to grips with reality.

It'll never happen. He is not losing any sleep over this. It's just a fantasy about retribution.

The United States doesn't recognize the ICC. So there's nothing for him to be referred to. If the ICC wants to create a legal case against him, all the US has to do is point at Xi Jingping and is ethnic cleansing programs and ask why they haven't brought a legal case against him and tried to extradite him.

Everyday Americans would not tolerate it. Remember that while many don't like Trump and for good reason - me included - it would be viewed as a violation of American sovereignty which would not be tolerated. I would oppose it myself even though I think he belongs in jail over January 6th. But he'd belong in American jail, tried in our courts, under our legal system.

I also have to add it is always interesting to hear the things people proclaim to care about. I don't think everyday Americans even if they know about this alleged[1] double-tap, really care much or even think about it at all. I know I don't. Has anyone brought a case to the ICC? I know that South American countries referred Maduro to the ICC. :)

[1] It seems clear that it happened, and I'm not disputing that. But I say alleged simply because there has been no prosecution that I'm aware of. If there's a better word choice than alleged I'd be happy to use it, it was just the one that I thought fit the sentence best.

22% of what?

> Are you seriously suggesting America's influence is increasing?!

I'm not sure. In some ways yes, in other ways no. It's also changing. Negotiation doesn't always look like two countries come together and have a handshake and photo opportunity and declare some thing. But the OP is implying "it's all gone". That's just incorrect. America by virtue of simply being America always has a seat at the table.

Trump isn't sweaty about the ICC. There is next to 0% likelihood that an American president would be sent to the ICC to be tried or something. Anyone who thinks that might happen or thinks the ICC might have the power to compel such a scenario is quite delusional or just misunderstands how the world actually works.

> The United States has never recognized the jurisprudence of ICC anyways.

True, neither has China, India, or Russia.

On the other hand, the US is still negotiating with lots of countries across the world, continuing to invest and be invested in, continuing to grow economically, and more.

Your personal point of view which primarily exists in a silo on the Internet does not match the viewpoints of most of the rest of the world, including folks in Europe.

So, yes again, America. That's how the world works.

We can acknowledge that and also acknowledge that a lot of petty crime goes unreported/unresolved because the police can't do anything, and that our target should still be 0 crime and folks are entitled to be upset about any amount of crime. Recent example I have is a work truck behind my neighbors house in the alleyway. Parked for less than 5 minutes, went inside a garage to look at something, came back, and someone had already walked off with their tools. I sort of got the guy who did it on video which I provided to the person who was victimized, but who knows if anything ever really came of it. Probably not. Does that actually show up in crime statistics? I bet it doesn't.

What is also missing here is that even if there is not criminal activity occurring, there is a general influx of highly anti-social behavior occurring that feeds in to the perception that higher rates of criminal activity occurring. This is very noticeable when you see people casually running red lights, driving without registration, yelling and screaming at people on the street or at the bus stop, and more. Even if I'm unlikely to be a victim of a crime, I don't feel safe when these anti-social behaviors are occurring, people are shoplifting and now going to CVS feels like going to a third-world country.

Framing this as right-wing propaganda I believe is a mistake and if you are a leftist it just loses elections for you because even if the folks who are concerned about crime levels are wrong (they're not though) the perception matters much more than reality. Denying the perception implies you deny the reality too and fewer people are going to vote in favor of candidates who tell them that what they see for themselves isn't happening.