"there will be a Communist China or maybe a Russia (or maybe a theocracy, who knows) just praying for the end of American strength so that they can try their turn at dominance. It doesn't necessarily require WWIII or a physical invasion, just a power vacuum that will be filled, either militarily or economically, with the end result being the same. They will not be respecting the gentle societies of the utopian social democrats. They will destroy it and replace it with their own doctrine.

If you find that ridiculous, so be it."

I don't find this ridiculous. Not at all.

Look guys,

I'm not doug. Taking on everyone at the same time is not within my personality.

Posted by Uofa2 on 4/16/2020 4:10:00 PM (view original):
"there will be a Communist China or maybe a Russia (or maybe a theocracy, who knows) just praying for the end of American strength so that they can try their turn at dominance. It doesn't necessarily require WWIII or a physical invasion, just a power vacuum that will be filled, either militarily or economically, with the end result being the same. They will not be respecting the gentle societies of the utopian social democrats. They will destroy it and replace it with their own doctrine.

If you find that ridiculous, so be it."

I don't find this ridiculous. Not at all.

Thank you, Sir. I was afraid that this (which was a central point of my argument) was falling on deaf ears.

Sorry that you kind of got ganged up on this one, miami. I do enjoy discussing with you, and usually it is us on the left who have to argue against the majority on these forums.

I guess the fundamental disagreement we have is on whether

a) It is our job to defend Europe and Asia from imperialist forces
b) Whether the US hegemony is the only thing protecting other nations from imperialist forces
c) Whether nuclear weapons fundamentally changed foreign policy

Posted by tangplay on 4/16/2020 4:33:00 PM (view original):
Sorry that you kind of got ganged up on this one, miami. I do enjoy discussing with you, and usually it is us on the left who have to argue against the majority on these forums.

I guess the fundamental disagreement we have is on whether

a) It is our job to defend Europe and Asia from imperialist forces
b) Whether the US hegemony is the only thing protecting other nations from imperialist forces
c) Whether nuclear weapons fundamentally changed foreign policy

LOL, no problem. I appreciate the admission. I'm just not equipped to spend all day answering back like some cat lovers do.

Not sure how to answer a or b because neither of them have easy answers.

C is probably the easiest. If you only think in terms of military warfare (tanks, bombers, aircraft carriers, submarines) then rsp is exactly correct that this is not 1940 and the equation has fundamentally changed. Nuclear weapons are the difference. Conventional power is important for localized conflicts or even regional conflicts but not a world war. That is why I say militarily OR economically. Prussia formed the German Empire in 1871 without attacking a single Hessian, Hannoverian, Bavarian, etc. Those regions joined Prussia out of sheer economic necessity. In effect, they didn't have a choice because they were economically defeated. So, IMHO, nuclear weapons require some creativity to overcome but will not fundamentally alter human nature's basic desire to rule over other humans.

A is too much up in the air. It was our job. Is it still our job? I'm not sure.

B is not asking the right question. If it is not US hegemony, it will be (fill in the blank) hegemony. I believe there will always be a dominant power. For me, the better question is who do you prefer over your own nation? I'd rather live in an American Empire, with its inherent faults, than in a Chinese (or fill in the blank) Empire. Maybe that's selfish but it is the truth.

OK, so as long as we both agree that there is very little risk of an actual military invasion from a foreign power, I'm a bit confused as to what the original topic of social democracy has to do with your economic argument. While China and Russia are, indeed trying to assert influence though economic outreach in areas like Taiwan and Central America, I fail to see the connection this has with social democracy.

If your argument then becomes "Social Democracy hurts the economy", that's fine, but it's completely distinct from the original argument of "Social democracy works because they don't have to spend on military".

Posted by tangplay on 4/16/2020 5:31:00 PM (view original):
OK, so as long as we both agree that there is very little risk of an actual military invasion from a foreign power, I'm a bit confused as to what the original topic of social democracy has to do with your economic argument. While China and Russia are, indeed trying to assert influence though economic outreach in areas like Taiwan and Central America, I fail to see the connection this has with social democracy.

If your argument then becomes "Social Democracy hurts the economy", that's fine, but it's completely distinct from the original argument of "Social democracy works because they don't have to spend on military".

Yes, we agree on that.

I'm probably not explaining myself well with the social democracy part. Social democrats have a conscience, right? They have a sense of right and wrong. They have ideals about fairness and equality and justice and goodness and compassion. It's reflected in the way they budget and tax and spend and view other nations.

Authoritarian regimes aren't burdened with any of that. Whereas Europe is concerned with helping the poor or meek or underpriviledged, authoriantarianism is only interested in the application of sheer (economic) force and may be willing to do whatever it takes in order to get (economic) power and keep it once gotten. Authoritarians don't give a damn about fairness and equality and justice and goodness and compassion. Those are ideals born from The Enlightenment and authoritarianism is anything but enlightened. That gives the authoritarians a tremendous advantage if the contest purely revolves around money (economics.)

Obviously my position would be that these ideals (fairness and equality and justice and goodness and compassion) aren't mutually exclusive with a strong economy, or at least to the extent that it would allow authoritarians to take over. It's not empirically true. Is Russia really outpacing every other European country in terms of their economy? Authoritarianism (and a lack of fairness) doesn't necessarily translate into economic growth.

Posted by tangplay on 4/16/2020 6:46:00 PM (view original):
Obviously my position would be that these ideals (fairness and equality and justice and goodness and compassion) aren't mutually exclusive with a strong economy, or at least to the extent that it would allow authoritarians to take over. It's not empirically true. Is Russia really outpacing every other European country in terms of their economy? Authoritarianism (and a lack of fairness) doesn't necessarily translate into economic growth.

If we are discussing long-term prospects, meaning which system would be in a stronger economic position 25 or 50 years in the future, I agree with you.

During times of economic crisis which are normally of a shorter duration, like the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression immediately following, it was the authoritarian regimes punctuated by the Soviet 5-year plans and the German Enabling Act (which led to economic recovery through rearmament) that made swifter economic gains when compared to the "democracies." They didn't have to follow any rules.

Talking about Russia or China in isolation, I think, is misleading. There would be a coalition of nations that would band together...like the Axis or the Entente before WWI. I can't imagine Russia doing anything on its own. Russia, China, Iran and Turkey forming an economic bloc/alliance (I'm just making up a combo here) would be more likely.

I guess I can argue with some minor parts of your argument all day, but the core of this discussion is about social democracy. Your argument seems to be that authoritarian nations, or countries who don't follow the rules, will outpace others in terms of the economy. This argument isn't relevant, however, because as far as I am aware, the United States is not currently governed by an authoritarian (although some lefties might disagree). I don't know how embracing social democracy would change that. Can you explain this? Examples of policy would be nice.

If we take your last post at face value, the conclusion would be that the United States, in its present form, is ****** anyway, so we should elect a dictator to "break the rules" and improve the economy for a short period of time to prevent a bunch of other countries from joining forces to take over the world.

Umm...tang, I'm speaking theoretically. I'm also using rhetoric. Switching from the abstract to the concrete would be a train wreck. We can debate Hegel and Kant some other time.

Clearly, I am failing to make myself clear, which is my own shortcoming. Your initial impression of what I was driving at "authoritarian nations, or countries who don't follow the rules, will outpace others in terms of the economy" was not near the mark...unless you replace outpace with short-term advantage (free peoples take time to debate a subject, serfs just do what they're told.) I honestly don't know how else to say what I have been saying. I have already stated my belief about the relationship between social democracy and the USA in a previous post.

The 2nd paragraph is a straight-up straw man fallacy. Use that one on others.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

South Korea and the United States reported their first cases on the same day.

South Korea had 22 new cases yesterday. The United States had 29,465.

Posted by Uofa2 on 3/14/2020 1:44:00 AM (view original):
South Korea has done 120k tests and has 60m people.

The USA has 350m and have done 16k tests.

sigh

Posted by Uofa2 on 4/17/2020 9:41:00 AM (view original):
South Korea and the United States reported their first cases on the same day.

South Korea had 22 new cases yesterday. The United States had 29,465.

Not all of that is a reflection on government. The personality of the populace comes into play as well.