by DOGEWontAmountToShit ➕follow (3) 💰tip ignore
« First « Previous Comments 28 - 52 of 52 Search these comments
"I am a professional fantasy novelist, and I can’t come up with shit that’s as implausible as what the average dorky leftist accepts as gospel."
So if TMI was "our Chernobyl" and Vietnam was "our Afgh" how come we're still standing 50 years later, while the USSR did last a mere half-decade after theirs?
Saudi-shmaudi: with the US being the top oil producer in the world and Soviets cheating OPEC like mad they are getting more and more irrelevant every day.
And while screaming "THE SKY IS FALLING" is fun, "the sky has been falling for 50 years and is gonna totally-totally fall in the next 50" doesn't have the same ring to it.
What is our Afghanistan and Chernobyl? Have they happened yet?
Triffin's Dilemma
Reserve Currency Paradox
Becoming a reserve currency presents countries with a paradox. They want the "interest-free" loan generated by selling currency to foreign governments, and they need to be able to raise capital quickly because of high demand for reserve currency-denominated bonds. At the same time, they want to be able to use capital and monetary policy to ensure that domestic industries are competitive in the world market and to make sure that the domestic economy is healthy and not running large trade deficits. Unfortunately, both of these ideas—cheap sources of capital and positive trade balances—usually can't happen at the same time.
This is the Triffin dilemma, named after Robert Triffin, an economist who wrote of the impending doom of the Bretton Woods system in his 1960 book, Gold and the Dollar Crisis: The Future of Convertibility. He pointed out that the years of pumping dollars into the world economy through post-war programs, such as the Marshall Plan, was making it increasingly difficult to stick to the gold standard. The country had to achieve this by instilling international confidence through a current account surplus while also having a current account deficit by providing immediate access to gold.
Issuing a reserve currency means that monetary policy is no longer a domestic-only issue—it's international. Governments have to balance the desire to keep unemployment low and economic growth steady with its responsibility to make monetary decisions that will benefit other countries. The reserve currency status is, thus, a threat to national sovereignty.
https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/1011/how-the-triffin-dilemma-affects-currencies.aspx
Now the currency will fail, like a great slow motion catastrophic train wreck.
Afghanistan is our Afghanistan. Maui and Palestine Ohio were fairly small, but highly embarrassing.
People don't realize in a civil war the military would prob collapse.
US troops, uniquely, are cycled such that there's no regional or ideological cohesion. Infantrymen won't follow the 3rd or 4th LT who's cycled in within 5 years to fight their own people.
50%+ desertion.
This was a policy the US adopted starting in ww1 so that none of units would become regional militias post-war.
They didn't want troops more loyal to their officers in the 3rd Alabama Rifles than the federal government. So they formed "All American" Divisions.
Troops from New York, California and Alaska would serve in the same platoons and their officers cycled from a common pool.
This meant the first civil war could never repeat where entire states took their troops away and had coherent units.
The thing is this also meant the US could never have the cohesion in it's fighting force that the British or the Germans had.
Germans consistently outfought the US in all conditions... because their soldiers and officers knew each other for decades, many were schoolmates
So you had Germans who'd known eachother since gradeschool under officers who were often town heroes in their little German burgs... vs. recent US immigrants next to ohio corn kids, who often didn't even train together or just met their officers a month ago.
The thing is this doesn't even secure the nation from civil war.
The states still have their national guard units who ARE loyal to their state, just because wilson didn't give them 10 more divisions or let the states gain power doesn't mean he took their militias.
So if a civil war does happen, and the federal government tries to employ the national guard... they only imediately have access to the national guard units...
WHO ARE ALREADY MAXIMALLY LOYAL TO THE STATE THEY'D BE DEPLOYED IN
if the feds tries to use the regular military who're randomly mixed from the entire country against say a resistance movement in Pennsylvania... it's very likely those units would face 50% desertion as everyone who either sympathizes with the rebels or doesn't care evaporates
American infantry had one of the highest desertion rates of any power in ww2 due to the morale problems america's messed up unit cohession and bureaucratic culture causes.
Til the 1950s American deserter gangs ran the underworld of Paris and raided military supply convoys.
So the Feds have no regional units they can deploy against rivals. They can't send Connecticut Rifles into West Virginia, & The National Guard will actively resist fed attempts to exert control...
What do the feds have that's loyal?
Less than 100k Federal Agents.
East Germany has over 1 informant or secret policeman per 50 people. And they collapsed.
America has fewer than 1 federal agent per 3400 Americans...
They can't actually exert force against anything but isolated dissidents... Even low level resistance would break it.
AmericanKulak any relation to you?
US troops, uniquely, are cycled such that there's no regional or ideological cohesion. Infantrymen won't follow the 3rd or 4th LT who's cycled in within 5 years to fight their own people.
There is no law prohibiting state military/paramilitary units. Creating these units should be a top priority of Patriots.
« First « Previous Comments 28 - 52 of 52 Search these comments
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,251,725 comments by 14,925 users - Ceffer, goofus online now