I wonder if any bank executives are regretting their past political choices, now that they're getting "if you know what's good for you" demands to bail out friends of Trump by propping up those friends' investments in Argentina.
Concurrently, I imagine some Treasury staff are nervous about similar demands to "help out" from up in the org-chart. Using US government assets for private gain without Congressional approval is often 10-years-in-prison territory. (Ex: 18 U.S.C. § 641 and nearby sections.)
> And then the other party that claims anyone who's done better than anyone else is necessarily immoral.
This is both a strawman and dismissing a real issue. Inequality is a real problem that has a corrosive effect on democracy. Also, American liberals have done little if nothing to reduce the gross inequality in this country.
So no, the guy that said “nothing will fundamentally change” is not helping reduce inequality nor demanding ideological purity in that regard.
Inequality is a real problem, but America is not that unequal today compared both to its own history as well as the world at large. I mean this is like saying famine is an issue. Yeah it can be and it is in many parts of the world, but not here.
> Also, American liberals have done little if nothing to reduce the gross inequality in this country.
Well yeah but they also support chaos agents who do. I mean you are correct. Liberals do nothing to help the common man and then, when the common man riots, they do nothing to protect the well to do men either.
So it's pretty obvious to see why everyone dislikes them
I need not enumerate the reasons people dislike Republicans
America has higher levels of inequality than any of its post-industrialized peers [0]. It’s absolutely an issue here. Combine that with the ability to purchase political power, and you get the mess we have today.
I think we actually agree on most things; I generally agree with all the rest of your points. Liberals may as well be controlled opposition now.
That's because its post industrialized peers are failing states though. Assuming you are speaking of Europe, Japan and the anglosphere (Canada, Australia, and NZ), they are all having serious existential issues
The European countries cannot pay for their own defense and rely on America, thus their definition of even existing as nations is up for debate really. They're more like protectorates of the United States. If they actually had to pay for the defense resources they consume, they would quickly fail.
Canada is similar to a degree and while it is its own country, really depends on the US to protect its basic existence
Japan is dying as is Korea.
Australia and NZ maybe but they're having real economic trouble and are nothing to emulate.
Ironically it's the fact that our economy is forced to be large enough to pay for everyone else's defense that forces the economy into more inequality than there would be were America only responsible for its own sovereignty.
Basically, if other countries had robust economies that were strong enough to provide for its own defense, they would be as unequal as the United States since inequality happens as economies grow and the benefits are not shared.
If you can show me a real country that provides for its own defense and does not depend on America that is more equal then please. Off the top of my head there are really only a few countries that even meet the criteria of being independent states. Of those, Russia, China, and India are the only important ones. Maybe Iran. Literally none of these are countries to emulate. America has higher social mobility than all of them, which is what really matters, not the difference between the richest and poorest
That’s a really interesting argument that I hadn’t considered. The US certainly has the unenviable position of being the world’s “policeman” for lack of a better term. Other countries wanting help from the US, yet also maligning it. Which… is probably more fair now than before to be sure.
> Ironically it's the fact that our economy is forced to be large enough to pay for everyone else's defense that forces the economy into more inequality than there would be were America only responsible for its own sovereignty.
This is the part I’m not fully understanding. Are you saying it’s because the US is forced to spend more on defense leaving fewer resources to reduce inequality? I don’t see how suspect people like Musk are a necessary outcome of this paradigm... I do get that there is an insane amount of money pumped into the military-industrial complex though.
If you take the (naive) perspective that returning to a higher level of taxation on the most wealthy would increase government income, reducing inequality is just a beneficial side-effect there.
Edit: I apparently missed your point about inequality correlating to the size of an economy. Are you saying it’s not possible to have an economy as large as the US with less inequality than is currently present?
> This is the part I’m not fully understanding. Are you saying it’s because the US is forced to spend more on defense leaving fewer resources to reduce inequality? I don’t see how suspect people like Musk are a necessary outcome of this paradigm... I do get that there is an insane amount of money pumped into the military-industrial complex thoug
My claim is that America's technical dominance is due to its defense spending which leads to their being a larger economy and thus more inequality as some players win and some lose. Inequality means the rich get richer which is a thing that happens in a self propelling economy.
We see the same thing in other independent nations like China, India, and Russia who, unlike Europe and the anglosphere, have independent markets.
No it's not impossible to have a market the size of ours with less inequality. You could have more people all of whom are poorer. But for our population yes. We are the richest nation in the history of the world. The onus is actually on you to show beyond a reasonable doubt it can be done another way. The data we do have indicate that, even per capita, it would be impossible unless we had another country willing to spend money to alleviate our own governments mandate.
> That’s a really interesting argument that I hadn’t considered
With all due respect, then maybe you should sit and listen? Because this has been the main rallying cry of all the MAGA politicians. Look, I'm not even a huge Trump fan ( I voted for him once, but don't really like him, and still don't and hope we can all overcome this time as a country). But like, the Democrats simply don't listen.
Many poor Americans are mad America's funds go to help other countries while our own domestic needs are unmet. Meanwhile, those countries lecture us. While many here may have thought Vance's insistence that Zelensky thank America was asinine and crude, to many Americans, it expressed decades of frustration with European fecklessness. Were it not for the fact that most Americans trace ancestry to Europe, I think Europe would be much less developed.
I appreciate the discussion. Not entirely sure why you appear to be becoming somewhat incensed. I’ve been engaging in good faith.
I am aware of MAGA arguments and the continued expenditure of large amounts of money on other countries. I don’t think you have connected that well to inequality however.
I’m surprised that you treat the current way things are done in this country as monolithic. There are countless parameters to play with here… not just “what we have always done” and “throw all of that out and do everything different”.
> No it's not impossible to have a market the size of ours with less inequality.
> I don’t think you have connected that well to inequality however.
I don't really need to. I made a statement on how people feel. This is a common complaint you hear from MAGA supporters. Whether it's real or not really has no bearing on how people vote. In a democracy, representatives ought to listen to their constituents. One issue that's really common on the democrat side is they attempt to disagree with their constituents. This is why republican representatives and governors tend to be more popular. You can dismiss this as populism. It totally is. But, I mean, how can the democrats claim to be in favor of equality if they literally believe the average voter (presumably the one that deserves equality with 'the elite') needs to be lectured down to?
Not trying to be incensed, just asking the obvious questions. Me personally, I'm by all measures what people would consider the 'elite'. I don't really care either way personally. I'll be fine.
> Good, we agree on this.
Yeah, if America's economy were allowed to simply be, and we had less global involvement (including migration), then our economy would shift back to a normal human distribution of inequality. As it is, we are the world's guarantor of stability. For Europe, this includes military protectionism. But for all the world, including India and China, we take their most ambitious people here because they cannot handle them (historically, these countries end up killing their elite every few hundred years). Thus, we end up with extremely rich people. This is true of Trump's family as well. Clearly, his family had what it takes to make a ton of money and be wealthy. And Germany couldn't handle that so they sent them to America.
At the end of the day, it's the American immigration system and the American global police state (which are actually the same thing) that force America's economy into being more acutely unequal.
Makes perfect sense for currencies that are not big enough to be moved. And I think there is two... You don't want economic issues because some sociopath decides to make some money by exploiting your currency.
Reading about Argentina's history made me lose faith in humanity lol.
They just keep voting for populists constantly telling themselves this time will be different.
Are you from the US? You might not have a leg to stand on depending on how our democracy survives the current efforts to undermine checks and balances.
It's "funnier" than that - in September China bought no soy bean exports from the US (last time that happened was under another president, weirdly he was called Trump as well) meanwhile by far the largest buyer of soy beans from Argentina is China.
So US farmers lost a decent market for a crop they mostly grow as crop rotation with Corn which is going to require them either getting bailed out or going to the wall while the same president is backing up the country that made bank from the shift in China buying US soybeans.
I've no dog in the fight - not American, Argentine or Chinese but it feels like a weird deal for a guy who "wrote" a book called "The Art of the Deal" no?
> I've no dog in the fight - not American, Argentine or Chinese but it feels like a weird deal for a guy who "wrote" a book called "The Art of the Deal" no?
It makes more sense when you realize he doesn't actually give a rats ass about "Making America Great Again". He is only looking to enrich himself, other rich people and advance his ideology. And for that last part he can't have Milei fail after so vocally supporting him and sacrificing tax payer money for that is something he doesn't have to think twice about doing. In that sense it would be a perfect deal for him and his allies.
> The bank loans would be part of the Trump administration’s plan to backstop the finances of libertarian President Javier Milei’s government with a $40 billion package, including a $20 billion currency swap with the U.S. Treasury Department and the separate $20 billion bank-led debt facility.
I wonder if any bank executives are regretting their past political choices, now that they're getting "if you know what's good for you" demands to bail out friends of Trump by propping up those friends' investments in Argentina.
Concurrently, I imagine some Treasury staff are nervous about similar demands to "help out" from up in the org-chart. Using US government assets for private gain without Congressional approval is often 10-years-in-prison territory. (Ex: 18 U.S.C. § 641 and nearby sections.)
Well you have one party demanding adherence to their political norms or else.
And then the other party that claims anyone who's done better than anyone else is necessarily immoral.
It's a lose lose situation.
And the are the American people. Both sides demand ideological purity while doing very little to affect the material conditions of common Americans
> And then the other party that claims anyone who's done better than anyone else is necessarily immoral.
This is both a strawman and dismissing a real issue. Inequality is a real problem that has a corrosive effect on democracy. Also, American liberals have done little if nothing to reduce the gross inequality in this country.
So no, the guy that said “nothing will fundamentally change” is not helping reduce inequality nor demanding ideological purity in that regard.
Inequality is a real problem, but America is not that unequal today compared both to its own history as well as the world at large. I mean this is like saying famine is an issue. Yeah it can be and it is in many parts of the world, but not here.
> Also, American liberals have done little if nothing to reduce the gross inequality in this country.
Well yeah but they also support chaos agents who do. I mean you are correct. Liberals do nothing to help the common man and then, when the common man riots, they do nothing to protect the well to do men either.
So it's pretty obvious to see why everyone dislikes them
I need not enumerate the reasons people dislike Republicans
America has higher levels of inequality than any of its post-industrialized peers [0]. It’s absolutely an issue here. Combine that with the ability to purchase political power, and you get the mess we have today.
I think we actually agree on most things; I generally agree with all the rest of your points. Liberals may as well be controlled opposition now.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_Unite...
That's because its post industrialized peers are failing states though. Assuming you are speaking of Europe, Japan and the anglosphere (Canada, Australia, and NZ), they are all having serious existential issues
The European countries cannot pay for their own defense and rely on America, thus their definition of even existing as nations is up for debate really. They're more like protectorates of the United States. If they actually had to pay for the defense resources they consume, they would quickly fail.
Canada is similar to a degree and while it is its own country, really depends on the US to protect its basic existence
Japan is dying as is Korea.
Australia and NZ maybe but they're having real economic trouble and are nothing to emulate.
Ironically it's the fact that our economy is forced to be large enough to pay for everyone else's defense that forces the economy into more inequality than there would be were America only responsible for its own sovereignty.
Basically, if other countries had robust economies that were strong enough to provide for its own defense, they would be as unequal as the United States since inequality happens as economies grow and the benefits are not shared.
If you can show me a real country that provides for its own defense and does not depend on America that is more equal then please. Off the top of my head there are really only a few countries that even meet the criteria of being independent states. Of those, Russia, China, and India are the only important ones. Maybe Iran. Literally none of these are countries to emulate. America has higher social mobility than all of them, which is what really matters, not the difference between the richest and poorest
That’s a really interesting argument that I hadn’t considered. The US certainly has the unenviable position of being the world’s “policeman” for lack of a better term. Other countries wanting help from the US, yet also maligning it. Which… is probably more fair now than before to be sure.
> Ironically it's the fact that our economy is forced to be large enough to pay for everyone else's defense that forces the economy into more inequality than there would be were America only responsible for its own sovereignty.
This is the part I’m not fully understanding. Are you saying it’s because the US is forced to spend more on defense leaving fewer resources to reduce inequality? I don’t see how suspect people like Musk are a necessary outcome of this paradigm... I do get that there is an insane amount of money pumped into the military-industrial complex though.
If you take the (naive) perspective that returning to a higher level of taxation on the most wealthy would increase government income, reducing inequality is just a beneficial side-effect there.
Edit: I apparently missed your point about inequality correlating to the size of an economy. Are you saying it’s not possible to have an economy as large as the US with less inequality than is currently present?
> This is the part I’m not fully understanding. Are you saying it’s because the US is forced to spend more on defense leaving fewer resources to reduce inequality? I don’t see how suspect people like Musk are a necessary outcome of this paradigm... I do get that there is an insane amount of money pumped into the military-industrial complex thoug
My claim is that America's technical dominance is due to its defense spending which leads to their being a larger economy and thus more inequality as some players win and some lose. Inequality means the rich get richer which is a thing that happens in a self propelling economy.
We see the same thing in other independent nations like China, India, and Russia who, unlike Europe and the anglosphere, have independent markets.
No it's not impossible to have a market the size of ours with less inequality. You could have more people all of whom are poorer. But for our population yes. We are the richest nation in the history of the world. The onus is actually on you to show beyond a reasonable doubt it can be done another way. The data we do have indicate that, even per capita, it would be impossible unless we had another country willing to spend money to alleviate our own governments mandate.
> That’s a really interesting argument that I hadn’t considered
With all due respect, then maybe you should sit and listen? Because this has been the main rallying cry of all the MAGA politicians. Look, I'm not even a huge Trump fan ( I voted for him once, but don't really like him, and still don't and hope we can all overcome this time as a country). But like, the Democrats simply don't listen.
Many poor Americans are mad America's funds go to help other countries while our own domestic needs are unmet. Meanwhile, those countries lecture us. While many here may have thought Vance's insistence that Zelensky thank America was asinine and crude, to many Americans, it expressed decades of frustration with European fecklessness. Were it not for the fact that most Americans trace ancestry to Europe, I think Europe would be much less developed.
I appreciate the discussion. Not entirely sure why you appear to be becoming somewhat incensed. I’ve been engaging in good faith.
I am aware of MAGA arguments and the continued expenditure of large amounts of money on other countries. I don’t think you have connected that well to inequality however.
I’m surprised that you treat the current way things are done in this country as monolithic. There are countless parameters to play with here… not just “what we have always done” and “throw all of that out and do everything different”.
> No it's not impossible to have a market the size of ours with less inequality.
Good, we agree on this.
> I don’t think you have connected that well to inequality however.
I don't really need to. I made a statement on how people feel. This is a common complaint you hear from MAGA supporters. Whether it's real or not really has no bearing on how people vote. In a democracy, representatives ought to listen to their constituents. One issue that's really common on the democrat side is they attempt to disagree with their constituents. This is why republican representatives and governors tend to be more popular. You can dismiss this as populism. It totally is. But, I mean, how can the democrats claim to be in favor of equality if they literally believe the average voter (presumably the one that deserves equality with 'the elite') needs to be lectured down to?
Not trying to be incensed, just asking the obvious questions. Me personally, I'm by all measures what people would consider the 'elite'. I don't really care either way personally. I'll be fine.
> Good, we agree on this.
Yeah, if America's economy were allowed to simply be, and we had less global involvement (including migration), then our economy would shift back to a normal human distribution of inequality. As it is, we are the world's guarantor of stability. For Europe, this includes military protectionism. But for all the world, including India and China, we take their most ambitious people here because they cannot handle them (historically, these countries end up killing their elite every few hundred years). Thus, we end up with extremely rich people. This is true of Trump's family as well. Clearly, his family had what it takes to make a ton of money and be wealthy. And Germany couldn't handle that so they sent them to America.
At the end of the day, it's the American immigration system and the American global police state (which are actually the same thing) that force America's economy into being more acutely unequal.
It's crazy there are currencies that aren't free-floating even today.
Makes perfect sense for currencies that are not big enough to be moved. And I think there is two... You don't want economic issues because some sociopath decides to make some money by exploiting your currency.
But that's why you let them float and I get the impression you're suggesting the opposite?
https://archive.ph/oIXoC
Is this a bailout or just regular nation to nation borrowing?
Here is one explanation: https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/bailing-out-bessents-budd...
That was unfortunately very light on details and could be tossed away as mere speculation. I’d love to learn more on this though.
I apologize. Agreed, and same here. If anyone else has better details, please share.
Reading about Argentina's history made me lose faith in humanity lol. They just keep voting for populists constantly telling themselves this time will be different.
Are you from the US? You might not have a leg to stand on depending on how our democracy survives the current efforts to undermine checks and balances.
US citizens are the ONLY backing for the US dollar, and so this is something else they get to "back" and bail out, rather than say, eat
Making America Great Again by pawning off the country to bail out another country because the president is buddies with theirs.
It's "funnier" than that - in September China bought no soy bean exports from the US (last time that happened was under another president, weirdly he was called Trump as well) meanwhile by far the largest buyer of soy beans from Argentina is China.
So US farmers lost a decent market for a crop they mostly grow as crop rotation with Corn which is going to require them either getting bailed out or going to the wall while the same president is backing up the country that made bank from the shift in China buying US soybeans.
I've no dog in the fight - not American, Argentine or Chinese but it feels like a weird deal for a guy who "wrote" a book called "The Art of the Deal" no?
> I've no dog in the fight - not American, Argentine or Chinese but it feels like a weird deal for a guy who "wrote" a book called "The Art of the Deal" no?
It makes more sense when you realize he doesn't actually give a rats ass about "Making America Great Again". He is only looking to enrich himself, other rich people and advance his ideology. And for that last part he can't have Milei fail after so vocally supporting him and sacrificing tax payer money for that is something he doesn't have to think twice about doing. In that sense it would be a perfect deal for him and his allies.
It makes perfect sense since he didn’t even write the book - he had it ghost written.
isn't it $40B?
> The bank loans would be part of the Trump administration’s plan to backstop the finances of libertarian President Javier Milei’s government with a $40 billion package, including a $20 billion currency swap with the U.S. Treasury Department and the separate $20 billion bank-led debt facility.
This is totally fucking stupid. So much for the "America first", because it's billionaires and foreign authoritarian leaders first.
So, Milei is an “authoritarian “ now.
That Overton window keeps getting narrower and narrower on that side. I’m wondering if it even lets any light in anymore.
[dead]
lol if it's that narrow on "that" side, it's shut so tight it imploded on the other