What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Jacob]

Man, American leadership post WWII until Trump must all have been complete idiots, spending all that money on NATO for no benefit to the US.

The US' prosperity and dominance of the globe in that period - militarily, economically, and socially - probably has no connection whatsoever to the strong system of alliances it built, and the fact that a whole bunch of advanced economies looked to the US for leadership and supported its agenda.

It's pretty clear that it would not have affected the US significantly if the Soviet Union had rolled into Western Europe, or China into South Korea or Taiwan. Roosevelt, Reagan, and Eisenhower and those other presidents (and the parties who supported them) were obviously hopelessly naive dunces who sacrificed the national interest and let themselves be taken advantage of by wily freeloading Europeans and other alleged allies.

This is obviously evident from the way the American standard of living stagnated in that time period and never managed to surpass that of the Europeans who so cleverly bamboozled the naive American leadership.

Luckily for America that era seem to be coming to an end. It will without a doubt lead to a great increase in American prosperity, influence, and security.

[Admiral Yi]

But that framing removes all externalities and reduces the situation to a basic trade. You want a grape, I give you half a grape, or a piece of cucumber or whatever. It doesn't explain why you take the half a grape from me instead of going out alone to get a grape when you have the ability. If you have the option to get a whole grape and you choose to accept my half grape then there has to be a reason for your action. A benefit over and above the half a grape you're losing.

I'm not arguing fairness. Fairness rarely sways politics. Your president put tariffs on my country because his wife thought Trudeau was hot. Is that fair? No. Did it still happen?

Yes, I have the theoretical possibility of guaranteeing Estonia's territorial integrity and independence by myself.  So do you.  Well, maybe not just you, but certainly if you got Zanza and Squeeze et al to pitch in. Instead we decide to cooperate to our mutual benefit.  Then I raise the issue of fairness.  You tell me I'm going to do it anyway because I love Estonia so much.  You're in effect blackmailing me with Estonia as the hostage.  I turn around and blackmail you with Estonia as the hostage by threatening to leave NATO.  Does our both using Estonia as a hostage make me the bad guy and you the good guy?

[Admiral Yi]

Man, American leadership post WWII until Trump must all have been complete idiots, spending all that money on NATO for no benefit to the US.

The US' prosperity and dominance of the globe in that period - militarily, economically, and socially - probably has no connection whatsoever to the strong system of alliances it built, and the fact that a whole bunch of advanced economies looked to the US for leadership and supported its agenda.

It's pretty clear that it would not have affected the US significantly if the Soviet Union had rolled into Western Europe, or China into South Korea or Taiwan. Roosevelt, Reagan, and Eisenhower and those other presidents (and the parties who supported them) were obviously hopelessly naive dunces who sacrificed the national interest and let themselves be taken advantage of by wily freeloading Europeans and other alleged allies.

This is obviously evident from the way the American standard of living stagnated in that time period and never managed to surpass that of the Europeans who so cleverly bamboozled the naive American leadership.

Luckily for America that era seem to be coming to an end. It will without a doubt lead to a great increase in American prosperity, influence, and security.

This entire post is a straw man.  Fairness, not net benefit.

[HVC]

Neither of us are the bad guy. You want to protect Estonia because an expanding gaijin  threatens your world leader status. Zanza and josq care because it's their backyard and I care because of cultural ties with josq. No one actually cares about Estonia (do we have an Estonian poster? ). It's all self interest. There is no fairness in politics. 

Which leads back to why stay in the treaty instead of going your own way. Zanza, Josq and I would probably still go to war if Estonia is in NATO 2.0. As would you no doubt, to keep Russia hemmed in (well, maybe Trump would join the Russian side ). So again the treaty as it stands must provide a greater benefit to you then what you lose to freeriding.

Also, why so concerned about fairness in this case. My memory might be faulty but I don't recall you caring so much about fairness in other international discussions. Or politics in general, really.

[HVC]

Anyway, good night. Cant let insomnia win . I think I've said my peace. It doesn't appear that well see eye to eye on this topic.

[Admiral Yi]

Also, why so concerned about fairness in this case. My memory might be faulty but I don't recall you caring so much about fairness in other international discussions. Or politics in general, really.

I don't recall a time when I haven't cared about fairness.

[The Brain]

A lot of thought went into writing the NATO treaty. The weak Article 5, which doesn't actually require you to do anything if a fellow member is attacked, was likely written that way because members didn't want to be dragged into WW3 by some insignificant incident in the Balkans. The weak Article 3, with no minimum military spending, also has to be assumed to be deliberate. Indeed it has always been perfectly fine to be a NATO member and have no military at all, even if you sit in the middle of a North Atlantic potential naval showdown area. Any issues with these things could have been raised before the treaty was signed.

[Syt]

Seems someone fainted in the Oval Office. The president reacted with the concern he gives to anyone not him.

[crazy canuck]

Are you trying to convince me it's not?

Proof positive you are not reading his posts.

[The Minsky Moment]

We won't know until you build a navy, will we?  You don't kill people not because you are more moral but because you are simply impotent. 

If overnight Canada and the United States switched navies, here's what would happen. The US would still keep blowing up Venezuelan fishing boats and Canada wouldn't.  Because blowing up Venezuelan fishing boats doesn't turn on the size of your guided missile frigate fleet or your amphibious lift capacity.  It turns on not being completely out of your mind.  Which means that still more than half the nations of the world qualify, regardless of fleet strength.  Unfortunately, it seems the USA is not in that half anymore.

[crazy canuck]

Man, American leadership post WWII until Trump must all have been complete idiots, spending all that money on NATO for no benefit to the US.

The US' prosperity and dominance of the globe in that period - militarily, economically, and socially - probably has no connection whatsoever to the strong system of alliances it built, and the fact that a whole bunch of advanced economies looked to the US for leadership and supported its agenda.

It's pretty clear that it would not have affected the US significantly if the Soviet Union had rolled into Western Europe, or China into South Korea or Taiwan. Roosevelt, Reagan, and Eisenhower and those other presidents (and the parties who supported them) were obviously hopelessly naive dunces who sacrificed the national interest and let themselves be taken advantage of by wily freeloading Europeans and other alleged allies.

This is obviously evident from the way the American standard of living stagnated in that time period and never managed to surpass that of the Europeans who so cleverly bamboozled the naive American leadership.

Luckily for America that era seem to be coming to an end. It will without a doubt lead to a great increase in American prosperity, influence, and security.

This entire post is a straw man.  Fairness, not net benefit.

Yeah, Americans have never considered their own self interest while constructing their economic hegemony.

[The Minsky Moment]

I find the whole NATO spending/burden sharing discussion to be kind of pointless.  It's a big alliance.  Some members spend a lot on defense; some don't.  Poland and the Baltics spend a lot, because they are at immediate risk from the Big Bad Bear. Spain (as an example) doesn't spend a lot, because they face no immediate threat.  It doesn't make sense to blow up the whole alliance, just to spite Spain for not spending a lot on defense.  I suppose you could kick Spain out, but to what benefit?  As for the US, what exactly would the US be saving by withdrawing from NATO?  From a pure hard calculation of cost-benefit, it seems obvious that the US is better in than out.

That's not to say the US and other high spending members shouldn't go through the exercise of shaming low spenders.  Sure they should.  But keep perspective.

[Razgovory]

We won't know until you build a navy, will we?  You don't kill people not because you are more moral but because you are simply impotent. 

If overnight Canada and the United States switched navies, here's what would happen. The US would still keep blowing up Venezuelan fishing boats and Canada wouldn't.  Because blowing up Venezuelan fishing boats doesn't turn on the size of your guided missile frigate fleet or your amphibious lift capacity.  It turns on not being completely out of your mind.  Which means that still more than half the nations of the world qualify, regardless of fleet strength.  Unfortunately, it seems the USA is not in that half anymore.

We won't know for sure until the Canadians decide they should have a military.

[mongers]

We won't know until you build a navy, will we?  You don't kill people not because you are more moral but because you are simply impotent. 

If overnight Canada and the United States switched navies, here's what would happen. The US would still keep blowing up Venezuelan fishing boats and Canada wouldn't.  Because blowing up Venezuelan fishing boats doesn't turn on the size of your guided missile frigate fleet or your amphibious lift capacity.  It turns on not being completely out of your mind.  Which means that still more than half the nations of the world qualify, regardless of fleet strength.  Unfortunately, it seems the USA is not in that half anymore.

We won't know for sure until the Canadians decide they should have a military.

Sub-par trolling, Raz you can do better than that.

[Admiral Yi]

I find the whole NATO spending/burden sharing discussion to be kind of pointless.  It's a big alliance.  Some members spend a lot on defense; some don't.  Poland and the Baltics spend a lot, because they are at immediate risk from the Big Bad Bear. Spain (as an example) doesn't spend a lot, because they face no immediate threat.  It doesn't make sense to blow up the whole alliance, just to spite Spain for not spending a lot on defense.  I suppose you could kick Spain out, but to what benefit?  As for the US, what exactly would the US be saving by withdrawing from NATO?  From a pure hard calculation of cost-benefit, it seems obvious that the US is better in than out.

That's not to say the US and other high spending members shouldn't go through the exercise of shaming low spenders.  Sure they should.  But keep perspective.

How is it that the US should shame certain members and the discussion is pointless both be true at the same time?