[jumping_frog]

US is the very reason why there is instability around the world. US touts security for itself as reason while causing insecurity for other nations, (either through military adventurism or social engineered coups) so that they can't rise.

[corimaith]

That's like saying the government is the biggest source of instability since they are sole entity performing the most violence.

Saying the US is preventing other countries from rising in the same thread where people are complaining about US industrial decline is paradoxical, it's precisely those industries were given to developing countries to foster their rise, what the neoliberals underestimated was how that convergence would lead to resurgence of palingentic ultranationalism that is why the world is so unstable today.

[jumping_frog]

US is happy if a country becomes its vassal state just like G7, EU and Japan. US likes if other countries don't have independent thought or freewill.

There is nothing largesse about US in this "those industries were given to developing countries to foster their rise". If it wanted to help others, it would have helped Africa the most. I can't believe the amount of brainwashing people have undergone.

How the U.S. Uses Wars to Fuel Perpetual Consumption｜Yanis Varoufakis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjLEmclSbO0

[corimaith]

Except Africa has in fact received billions in aid. Building factories & infrastructure like the BRI was all tried in the 60s, it never worked out due to failures of ISI development and weak governments and instuitions.

We've had 40 years of learning hard mistakes, if you believe the Western System is exploitative then the logical conclusion would be that isolation from that system would provide better outcomes, when in reality those that did stagnated. Domestic consumption markets are far too weak initially to drive growth, it's only through the focus on export surplus capacity to sell to open foreign markets that one can provide the impetus for growth.

But that's only possible so in as far the West or really the USA willingly chooses to open it's markets and let it's industries and blue-collar workers decline. From a global perspective, with the assumption that these developing markets would open their markets eventually would have been optimal in providing a path for everyone to develop. Except in reality, many of these countries especially now in the 2020s never intended to open their markets, they're perpetuating the massive trade imbalance with their neomercantalism. Which Varoufakis himself btw points out in The Global Minotaur as unsustainable.

Can you really say the USA is the oppressor in this instance or the victim in maintaining that massive trade deficit? If America decides to go protectionist (which is happening with Trump), the entire damn system collapses and the pathways for development will be closed for future nations.

It's not a question of whether China is building infrastructure or cheap cars for developing nations, it's whether they will be willing to let their industries be gouged by future upstarts. And with economic nationalism, the answer will always be no. And that goes for most of the "global south" for that matter. A zero-sum world for a zero-sum worldview. Compared to that, I would argue that America's attempt at positive-sum world was alot more charitable.

[jumping_frog]

Why is Yellen crying loud about "overcapacity" in China then? According to market principles, overcapacity is good and people will get cheaper goods. Maybe US has overcapacity of WMDs.