What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Admiral Yi]

I refuse to believe you're this naive. I believe my previous posts explain my position clearly enough. You're free to disagree with it.

I can't disagree until I know what you mean.  Maybe you're right?

[Zoupa]

I refuse to believe you're this naive. I believe my previous posts explain my position clearly enough. You're free to disagree with it.

I can't disagree until I know what you mean.  Maybe you're right?

The problem might be one of comprehension. I invite you to re-read my posts, do a little thinking and extrapolation.

Also, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I expressed my opinion/reading of NATO's importance to the US, that's about it.

[Admiral Yi]

But that enlightened self interest was still a net benefit, was it not? Outrage over freeriding seems misguided since even with that America benefitted in excess of any potential loss from free riders. Or maybe America is as bad at making a deal as trump claims


That's not to say countries shouldn't have met their obligations and kept their "word", since countries should. Though your country has decided that that isn't important after all... or at least 50% of the voting public.

Please show me how America benefitted in excess of any potential loss from free riders.

I agree that America is lousy at making deals.  The original NATO treaty did not specify minimum contributions AFAIK (yup, just googled).  So in granting mutual defense against invasion without requiring a proportionate contribution, it sowed the seeds for free riding.  Recognizing this flaw we tried to bind the members to minimum contributions.  Members promised on two separate, public occasions to do so.  This is a tacit admission their previous contributions were inadequate, i.e. an admission they had been freeriding and a promise to stop.

If you have a beef with me about whether Canada has been freeriding then you also have a beef with your elected leaders that made those promises.

[Admiral Yi]

The problem might be one of comprehension. I invite you to re-read my posts, do a little thinking and extrapolation.

Also, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I expressed my opinion/reading of NATO's importance to the US, that's about it.

I did as you suggested.  Situation unchanged.  The problem might be one of vagueness.

OK.  You achieved your goal of signalling which side your on and have nothing more to add.  Good talk.

[Zoupa]

The problem might be one of comprehension. I invite you to re-read my posts, do a little thinking and extrapolation.

Also, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I expressed my opinion/reading of NATO's importance to the US, that's about it.

The problem might be one of vagueness.

It is not.

[Admiral Yi]

Are you trying to convince me it's not?

[HVC]

But that enlightened self interest was still a net benefit, was it not? Outrage over freeriding seems misguided since even with that America benefitted in excess of any potential loss from free riders. Or maybe America is as bad at making a deal as trump claims


That's not to say countries shouldn't have met their obligations and kept their "word", since countries should. Though your country has decided that that isn't important after all... or at least 50% of the voting public.

Please show me how America benefitted in excess of any potential loss from free riders.

I agree that America is lousy at making deals.  The original NATO treaty did not specify minimum contributions AFAIK (yup, just googled).  So in granting mutual defense against invasion without requiring a proportionate contribution, it sowed the seeds for free riding.  Recognizing this flaw we tried to bind the members to minimum contributions.  Members promised on two separate, public occasions to do so.  This is a tacit admission their previous contributions were inadequate, i.e. an admission they had been freeriding and a promise to stop.

If you have a beef with me about whether Canada has been freeriding then you also have a beef with your elected leaders that made those promises.

I could just be naive, but I don't see why the US would be in a treaty for 75 years that went against their interests, but I suppose it's possible. If that's the case why not go it alone sometime between the other nations failing the first promise and making the second, or anytime thereafter. The benefits must exceed the costs, no? Be it military bases, weapons sales, or just good old fashion allie canon fodder.

Like I said, nations should keep their obligations, but not because they're somehow mistreating america and taking advantage of the poor maligned treaty partner who is being crushed under the burden of  unequal treatment.

As for beefing, I've got none with you. Your objections are mostly academic as I see it. The outrage i was alluding to is more along the likes of people like raz and his razing out.

[Admiral Yi]

I could just be naive, but I don't see why the US would be in a treaty for 75 years that went against their interests, but I suppose it's possible. If that's the case why not go it alone sometime between the other nations failing the first promise and making the second, or anytime thereafter. The benefits must exceed the costs, no? Be it military bases, weapons sales, or just good old fashion allie canon fodder.

Like I said, nations should keep their obligations, but not because they're somehow mistreating america and taking advantage of the poor maligned treaty partner who is being crushed under the burden of  unequal treatment.

As for beefing, I've got none with you. Your objections are mostly academic as I see it. The outrage i was alluding to is more along the likes of people like raz and his razing out.

We go to a restaurant together.  We eat a meal.  Time comes to pay the bill.  We agree to split the bill 50/30, because i'm richer or I ate more.  After you agree, and I put it on my card, you hand me a 20.  I ask for 10 more and you say I should, but not because you think it's unfair.

Tell me what you would do in my situation.  How would you respond?  I get the feeling the issue for you is not whether you freerode, or whether you should freeride, but that it's the US pointing out that you're freeriding. 

[HVC]

Would you go to dinner with me again next week? Every week for 75 years? if so you're getting more out of the deal then my 20 bucks. And it must exceed the 10 bucks I'm short. Maybe I'm great company


Maybe its the accountant in me, but I just see it as a cost benefit analysis. Whether you include freeloading as a primary cost or a secondary cost the benefit must exceed the costs. That's my point. I don't see a reason the situation would have continued without it (again i could be naive). I'm not saying it's right or good to freeride, just that the benefits exceed the costs of the freeride.

[Admiral Yi]

Would you go to dinner with me again next week? Every week for 75 years? if so you're getting more out of the deal then my 20 bucks. And it must exceed the 10 bucks I'm short. Maybe I'm great company


Maybe its the accountant in me, but I just see it as a cost benefit analysis. Whether you include freeloading as a primary cost or a secondary cost the benefit must exceed the costs. That's my point. I don't see a reason the situation would have continued without it (again i could be naive). I'm not saying it's right or good.

The very abstract notion of fairness is not about cost/benefit.  Your monkey's cost/benefit should have been to keep fetching rocks for celery.  He/she chose a different course.  You seemed to applaud his course.

[HVC]

Would you go to dinner with me again next week? Every week for 75 years? if so you're getting more out of the deal then my 20 bucks. And it must exceed the 10 bucks I'm short. Maybe I'm great company


Maybe its the accountant in me, but I just see it as a cost benefit analysis. Whether you include freeloading as a primary cost or a secondary cost the benefit must exceed the costs. That's my point. I don't see a reason the situation would have continued without it (again i could be naive). I'm not saying it's right or good.

The very abstract notion of fairness is not about cost/benefit.  Your monkey's cost/benefit should have been to keep fetching rocks for celery.  He/she chose a different course.  You seemed to applaud his course.

The monkey was in a cage without recourse. America can go grab the grapes on its own if it felt it benefited from it more

[Zoupa]

Are you trying to convince me it's not?

I'm trying to make you realize you have the relevant information and are being contrarian.

[Admiral Yi]

The monkey was in a cage without recourse. America can go grab the grapes on its own if it felt it benefited from it more

The grape is your contribution.  You either share it or you don't.  I can't reach far enough to grab it for myself.  You have to offer it voluntarily.

[Admiral Yi]

I'm trying to make you realize you have the relevant information and are being contrarian.

Awesome.  Please proceed.

[HVC]

The monkey was in a cage without recourse. America can go grab the grapes on its own if it felt it benefited from it more

The grape is your contribution.  You either share it or you don't.  I can't reach far enough to grab it for myself.  You have to offer it voluntarily.

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?