A Step Away From China - Is Trump Really Wrong?

[Speedwell]

And as the citation I posted clearly shows your assertions, or actually opinions since you have provided nothing to refute the furnished citation, are false.

Wouldn't happen to have a copy of one of those 'bills' would you? As I stated above you have furnished no citation to back up your opinions.

OK, you win. NATO members pay nothing to NATO directly and the only cost is what they pay to fund their own military. I should not be surprised about this as you certainly are the world's biggest expert on anything we discuss. In this case you know more about it than NATO itself.

Funding NATO

 

[mark46]

America is tired of wars. Also, the post war system was decided when we had only one strong economy in the world. Now, there are many. It is no longer necessary for the US to have the role it has had.

Personally, I would like us to increase our involvement and aid to Central America. I want us to increase our trade with our top 2 trade partners: Canada and Mexico, and increase our trade with Great Britain.
=========
SOME THOUGHTS

Eurasia is a future center and world power. Europe will continue to make more and more deals with Russia and China.

The US depends on exports less than almost any developed country. I suspect this will decrease even more. However, I am fine with increases in trade with countries in the Americas, in Africa and of course Great Britain.

ASIA
Trade with Asia is great, except for China. Perhaps, India will be a greater ally, but I suspect that we will be spending less and less on our protection of East Asia. We should be pulling out of Korea within a decade. The open questions are Japan and Australia. Australia has already asked us not to base missiles in Darwin. I suspect that we will choose to continue to defend Japan. After all, a militaristic Japan is inherently destabilizing [therefore China will look the other way and allow our defense of Japan]. Obama's pivot toward Asia may give way to a Trumpian pivot toward the US, at least toward North America.

EUROPE
The time has come for the protected children to be on their own. As in Asia, we can make trade deals. But the EU will become less and less important to us. Our troops should be removed, while keeping our defensive alliance with Spain. NATO and the G-7 will become European organizations. Obviously, Great Britain is the great exception. If necessary, we will fight a 3rd war on their behalf.

THE MIDDLE EAST
We must remove ourselves from the fight between Shia and Sunni. It is fine to have allies in Israel, Jordan, Qatar and the AME, but we should be out of the Arab struggle and out of nationbuilding.
===============
AFRICA
We tend to ignore the great growth in Africa. The US could choose to greatly increase trade and even have a military presence. Africa's only other choice is China. This is a great opportunity. Also, militarily, we need to have some economic alliances because of needed minerals.

THE AMERICAS
Perhaps not "the US First", but "the America's First" is fine. The Monroe Doctrine can work again. NAFTA 2, 3 and 4 are fine.
===============
BOTTOM LINE
The world is re-aligning, and there is little wrong with that.

Sure, and military goals and needs are shaped by our overall foreign policy. Should we, for example continue to provide security for Europe, the Persian Gulf region, the Eastern Pacific, etc.?

 

[wing2000]

BOTTOM LINE
The world is re-aligning, and there is little wrong with that.

The US needs to re-align to the new reality. We re-aligned at the end of the Cold War. We are overdue for another. It's time we start making defense policy based on the real threat assessments and in line with what our country can actually afford -- given all the other pressing domestic needs.

 

[mark46]

I agree with your first sentences. Personally, I think that what we can afford is irrelevant. If we had that view, we wouldn't have fought WWII. The US has (or should have) principles that underlies its military policies. Cost should NOT be the primary consideration. [Of course, waste and reasonable equipment choices are important]

The US needs to re-align to the new reality. We re-aligned at the end of the Cold War. We are overdue for another. It's time we start making defense policy based on the real threat assessments and in line with what our country can actually afford -- given all the other pressing domestic needs.

 

[wing2000]

I agree with your first sentences. Personally, I think that what we can afford is irrelevant. If we had that view, we wouldn't have fought WWII. The US has (or should have) principles that underlies its military policies. Cost should NOT be the primary consideration. [Of course, waste and reasonable equipment choices are important]

Obviously, a real threat such as we faced in WWII would drive priorities. No one is threatening US terrority today.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

Putting pressure on China who has been
having their way with us for a long time
is just another brilliant Trump move.

Smart things such as this
will be remembered in 2020.

M-Bob

 

[ralfyman]

The issue to consider is the Triffin dilemma. That is, an economy whose currency is used as a global reserve currency will eventually face trade deficits together with increased credit and other means to keep that currency propped up. If that's not enough, it may also spending to strengthen the military and use that to bully other countries.

This is what happened after 1945, even with the gold standard and the petrodollar which replaced it.

Meanwhile, other countries are forced to save and offer both labor and resources as cheap as possible in order to earn more dollars. That's also what happened, with U.S. businesses operating in these countries to take advantage of such.

Eventually, with so much debt, the same economy and allied ones will start weakening. That is what's been happening to the U.S., EU members, and Japan. Meanwhile, with more savings, spending plus the rise of middle classes start appearing in other countries. That's what happened to BRICS and emerging markets.

In order to keep debt levels low, Trump is following China and others by regulating businesses and even human movement, which is why he has been promoting restrictions on trade and immigration, both illegal and legal. He is also trying to make peace with North Korea and appears to be trying to avoid military expansionism.

Wall Street, which essentially controls the U.S. economy and funds the gov't, appears to be wary of such a strategy but might not mind because they already got their bailouts after 2008 at the expense of the public, focuses more on earning from financial speculation than from trade of goods, and recently received tax cut packages. In which case, as long as they remain in control of the U.S., then they probably won't mind what Trump does.

The military, on the other hand, will be affected, as lower debt levels also means less spending for them. The same goes for the middle class that for decades had been used to a spendthrift lifestyle.

Finally, just as Trump wants the U.S. to seek other trading partners, likely China and the rest of the world will continue doing similar.

Thus, to answer the OP's question, it's not wrong as long as one supports government regulation on businesses and is willing to face lower-paying jobs coupled with more expensive goods, as well as much lower military spending, all to decrease debt.

 

[RDKirk]

The issue to consider is the Triffin dilemma. That is, an economy whose currency is used as a global reserve currency will eventually face trade deficits together with increased credit and other means to keep that currency propped up. If that's not enough, it may also spending to strengthen the military and use that to bully other countries.

This is what happened after 1945, even with the gold standard and the petrodollar which replaced it.

Meanwhile, other countries are forced to save and offer both labor and resources as cheap as possible in order to earn more dollars. That's also what happened, with U.S. businesses operating in these countries to take advantage of such.

Eventually, with so much debt, the same economy and allied ones will start weakening. That is what's been happening to the U.S., EU members, and Japan. Meanwhile, with more savings, spending plus the rise of middle classes start appearing in other countries. That's what happened to BRICS and emerging markets.

In order to keep debt levels low, Trump is following China and others by regulating businesses and even human movement, which is why he has been promoting restrictions on trade and immigration, both illegal and legal. He is also trying to make peace with North Korea and appears to be trying to avoid military expansionism.

Wall Street, which essentially controls the U.S. economy and funds the gov't, appears to be wary of such a strategy but might not mind because they already got their bailouts after 2008 at the expense of the public, focuses more on earning from financial speculation than from trade of goods, and recently received tax cut packages. In which case, as long as they remain in control of the U.S., then they probably won't mind what Trump does.

The military, on the other hand, will be affected, as lower debt levels also means less spending for them. The same goes for the middle class that for decades had been used to a spendthrift lifestyle.

Finally, just as Trump wants the U.S. to seek other trading partners, likely China and the rest of the world will continue doing similar.

Thus, to answer the OP's question, it's not wrong as long as one supports government regulation on businesses and is willing to face lower-paying jobs coupled with more expensive goods, as well as much lower military spending, all to decrease debt.

I would point out that the current petrodollar agreement with Saudi Arabia obligates the US to remain involved with Saudi Arabia's continuing war with Iran, which conflicts with the need and desire to reduce military operations.

 

[ralfyman]

Indeed, there is a connection between the petrodollar and the military industrial complex that backs it.