"Biden says China is ‘not competition for us,’ prompting pushback from both parties"

@whodey said
No, I'm pretty sure he touches everyone, it just seems like he prefers girls.

It's like my dog, he prefers to hump certain legs but at the end of the day he will take what is available.

But it's all normal you see.

Don’t be disheartened he might get around to boys one day.

@deepthought said
I agree with your overall point, but do you really mean the Imperial German Navy? Surely you mean la Royale - the French Navy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-German_naval_arms_race

@sh76 said
Military hegemony is an anachronism.

As Alan Alda's West Wing character once said in a great debate episode, you don't have to fight for resources. You just have to pay for them.

Trade deficits and job outsourcing are certainly important economic issues, but:

1. It's not clear those things are necessarily bad; and
2. To the extent they are, they can be fixed by policy

The global economy is not a zero sum game; policies can benefit both the US and China.

Are you questioning the extent to which nation states are still the top dogs in international relations?

At the rate that multi/trans national corporations are consolidating and increasing their monopolizing power and influence over world trade, and importantly their lobbying influence in terms of who gets elected to run the powerful western democracies, the notion of America as the leading world hegemonic power into the future is decidedly suspect.

Rather it would seem that Trump signals the death knell of the nation state and single nation hegemony. Given his constant pivot to strongman who lead oligarchies, the Trump doctrine suggests a real politik that centres around business first.

The days of government for the people are numbered, soon to be openly replaced by government of the corporation. Under this regime, hegemony can no longer be considered to rest with the nation state.

While it may not yet appear to be so, a simple mind experiment of who depends on who reveals the underlying truth of the matter. Apple, Microsoft, Exxon, Royal Dutch Shell, Toyota, Volkswagen, Boeing, Airbus, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Halliburton, no longer need or require the consent of governments to exist. In fact governments are most likely considered a painful hemorrhoid by this group. But Governments definitely need these corporations to exist. And not even one bank was mentioned.

Therefore it would seem quite logical to suggest that Governments are little more than front organisations to provide cover and smokescreens for the real aims and agendas of multi-trans-national corporations and that true hegemony no longer rests in the corridors of elected power, but in the boardrooms and annual general meetings of the largest corporations in existence today.

@kmax87 said
Are you questioning the extent to which nation states are still the top dogs in international relations?

At the rate that multi/trans national corporations are consolidating and increasing their monopolizing power and influence over world trade, and importantly their lobbying influence in terms of who gets elected to run the powerful western democracies, the notion of Amer ...[text shortened]... r, but in the boardrooms and annual general meetings of the largest corporations in existence today.

Given all of the above, what would be a clear solution if you could just snap your fingers? Surely you must have one, as you exhibit a well thought-out study of the problem.

@kevcvs57 said
i take it we’ve given up on the dream of a world where there are no superpowers. Where individuals and businesses trade under a globally accepted set of rules, in a war of any kind the poor suffer disproportionately and that is true of nations as well as people.

You know, most US citizens, like the Dad at the softball game, are encouraging their children to be Winners. No5 your cup of tea, I take it.?? Absolutely amazing. And that you would think Russia and China would say, Yeah, let’s all be equal. Absolutely amazing.

@averagejoe1 said
Given all of the above, what would be a clear solution if you could just snap your fingers? Surely you must have one, as you exhibit a well thought-out study of the problem.

Maybe the people need a corporation to represent their interests in the corporate world. Pretty much the services Government used to provide as part of the taxes people paid, to be provided to shareholders of this corporation. Exclusions to membership would mean that those above a certain income who would like to be members, pay a levy that allows for the needs of the unemployed to be met. These corporations would have charters to operate in specific areas and would have tax concessions for the mix of people they provide membership to.

The IRS would then only deal with these corporations and the people would no longer pay Government anything. Washington DC that great big money pit of corruption and cronyism would slowly dissolve away and eventually all the money and energy that gets caught up and mired in this swamp will redistribute and be the surplus resource that keeps this market of self interested corporations working hard to provide increase to all their shareholders.

Healthcare, education, policing, utilities etc would all be classified as membership benefits. Even society's checks and balances like the EPA and the FDA could be turned into corporations that every people's corporation must have shares in. Look the possibilities are endless.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

why would I want to use public transportation when I have the luxury of using my personal vehicles?