Content
@
https://warpcast.com/~/channel/america
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
androidsixteen 🌲
@androidsixteen.eth
A model for the USA for the next ~10 years: a live player without moral scruples Upside is that it can dynamically respond to challenges like an overblown budget or shifting world powers. Downside is that it will fail to honor commitments and abide by rules (even those it may previously have set up itself) Eg. Throwing Europe under the bus and consolidating regional powers under its umbrella while front-running dead players as the current order collapses Short-term, it’s practical and may stave off more existential risks like insolvency or weakening military prowess Long-term, it gives up the hope of being the “city upon a hill”. Trust is earned slowly and eroded quickly The USA may remain a leader in many things — entrepreneurship, dynamism, military might, pure resource abundance, etc. But it can no longer be the indispensable nation, because it is giving up that story proactively before others can. Whether you mourn this is dependent on how you view it — a coming of age, or paradise lost
1 reply
0 recast
16 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
why would we lose "city upon the hill"? still the best place to move. where else?
3 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
kripcat.eth
@kripcat.eth
City on the hill doesn’t refer to economic success it refers to moral leadership and democratic idealism.
1 reply
0 recast
5 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
The Constitution is that, not playing world police
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
androidsixteen 🌲
@androidsixteen.eth
One man’s sovereignty is another man’s abdication That said, equivocation is the worst
2 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
> One man’s sovereignty is another man’s abdication Do Americans in the Rust Belt deserve a worst quality of life for the benefit for arbitrary people in other countries?
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
MJC
@mjc716
without making a moral or strategic judgment on our involvement in ukraine, this logic breaks down when the rust belt is paying more for x, y and z because we can't flex power around seas, straits and gulfs risk/reward, etc, but very few people are arbitrary when the whole board is potentially relevant
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
> we can't flex power around seas, straits and gulfs I don't follow the logic. Where will we not be able to flex our power?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
MJC
@mjc716
impossible to say - there are infinite inputs and outputs. why did the soviets put nukes randomly in cuba lol? very tough to maintain economic might without military leverage. cost and benefit to our involvement in ukraine and reasonable people could weigh one higher than the other. i buy that preserving our deterrence power for taiwan is more important, but also don't think we've spent all those billions in ukraine for the benefit of "arbitrary" people
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
