OT: Mearsheimer Testifies on Current USA Foreign Policy

I almost always deepfully respectfully disagree with Mearsheimer.***

I have long deeply agreed with him in subscribing to a fundamentalist form of what is often loosely called Foreign Relations and Policy “Realist Theory”, but I am of a slightly different sub-cult from him. This clear restrained critical statement that he has just made is tremendous and I hope influential.

I have never seen him speak so directly, even earnestly as he has been for the last two days on this topic:

“What is behind” the New Foreign Policy steps that Mearsheimer shines light on and then criticizes cannot be discussed here. The implications for METARcentric topics are immense.

***PLEASE help me have this thread be a platform for truly useful analyses and discussion of how changes in foreign policy affect our investment positions, done without violating our fragile cordon sanitaire against partisan or positional political theorizing or arguing.

The structures of the post world war II world, the world that we all grew up in, is vanishing. What comes next is not clear. I propose a discussion both to explore this vital new topic as well as to provide a careful exploration in how we can cooperate with Wendy to insure the board’s survival (even growth!) with attitudes and rules of restraint and decorum, ones that respect our traditional rambunctiousness…..

11 Likes

How did we get here?
I propose a confluence of the evolution of corporate business conduct[1] and influence over the US government representatives to an election of a US businessperson to the highest office in the nation.
For 3 years Zeihan has been talking about the withdrawal from the US Navy of guaranteeing freedom of seas to allow free trade. WHY? Because that guarantee bore some extraordinary costs. We no longer can afford to fund that with our massive ever increasing national debt. The US government is unwilling to adequately fund the nation with increased taxation. Eventually the tab comes due
Zeihan argues that the U.S., because of its unique geography (location, land, water transport, infrastructure, etc.), can more or less go it alone. The U.S. is no longer willing to serve as the guarantor of peace and security on the high seas, nor to keep its markets open to the likes of China. COVID was a wake up call to fragility of supply chains and a strategic threat to a nation. Globalization is fini. The Ukraine War has demonstrated the fragility of the US defense industry base of production. It will take decades to reindustrialize the USA.

The US Congress for 75 years have allowed that branch of government to become weak. They’ve allowed the president to intervene/invade in other sovereign nations without a peep of protest.

Greenland & Venezuela are now viewed by the president [CEO of USA]as weak entities that can be sliced off and merged with the conglomerate: USA. After all we have engaged in Gaza genocide & bombing Iran without any meaningful international protest.
US corporate behavior continues to violate laws with nefarious business practices with only minor fines imposed. A cost of business. Now that behavior is on the international stage. Can or will US behavior be opposed from the outside? Past history says no.
Only an internally can a change be made.

So buckle up buttercups. The current system is what we allowed to evolve.

[1]How the US Corporation & Economy has Transitioned-Thanks to Jack Welch

7 Likes

For 3 years Zeihan has therefore been an idiot.

We have the most capable Navy in the history of the world. We are usually #1 in numbers of ships, but we are always #1 in maritime capability, with nuclear subs, aircraft carriers, and other high end capabilities far surpassing those of rival nations.

That we may not patrol the entire world, given that we are but 4% of its population is beside the point. We do a lot of patrolling even where there is no reason to; indeed we could do less and most of the world would be just fine. (The lack of response to our clearly illegal tactics in Venezuela demonstrate how little other nations wish to get on our bad side.)

What are you (and he) talking about? We spend more on military than the next dozen countries combined . The only time DoD budget goes down is after the cessation of major hostilities, like Afghanistan or Vietnam, and it never goes back lower than it was when those started (even adjusted for inflation.)

If we do anything we spend FAR TOO MUCH at the Pentagon. That’s just one of the reasons why they can’t bring out an inexpensive plane or ship, and why a cheap drone attack is probably going to be the thing that kills out multi-billion dollar floating hotels and lauded do-everything-for-every-service aircraft.

Bah. Dump enough government money into something and watch it get ever-more expensive and without much improvement: see college education, medicine, housing, and, obviously, the military.

4 Likes

They’ve allowed the president to intervene/invade in other sovereign nations without a peep of protest.
Have been sleeping the past 25 years?

Congress has allowed the legislative branch of government to weaken to a second status in foreign policy.

2 Likes

Sort of. However there are two mighty powers that legally and eventually actually control Congress, the electorate of the USA as the ultimate power, and moneyed organized labor corporations & plutocrats as the immediate powers. More and more those immediate powers have seen the Congress as arcane and to be cut from the game as much as possible…. and that has born fruit with our current idiot powerless Congress.

3 Likes

I hazard a guess that you mean that Congressional representatives are being paid off by the highly wealthy to do nothing. Because those moneyed interests sure seem to spend a lot on Congress to get what they want. They aren’t being cut out of the financial game.

—Peter

4 Likes

Apologies, sort of. First you talk about letting the Navy deteriorate. Then it’s “letting that branch” deteriorate - I thought you were still talking about the military.

Yes, Congress has abdicated much of its power, aided by a compliant (often partisan/idiotic) USSC. But who didn’t know that?

3 Likes

US National Debt:

US interest payments on National Debt:

Interest on the national debt exceeds annual spending on Medicare, as well as national defense. In fiscal 2024, the government’s net interest expense was $879.9 billion, or 13% of all that year’s expenditures, according to data from the Office of Management and Budget.[1]

US National Debt as present of GDP:

Prediction of US National DEbt:

The US government whom is captured by corporate interests and the wealthy has 2 paths to address the above problem.
Increased taxation. ROFL
Print more dollars. Yep likely methinks. Kick the can down the road.

The upcoming test to see how the US government handles the upcoming bankruptcy of Medicare & Social Security.
3 solutions
A)Increase payroll tax &/or remove income cap.
B)Raise retirement age [currently 67]
C)Implement benefit cut

Option A is out.
12/23/2025

would require workers to pay more than $2,600 a year in extra payroll taxes to keep full benefits flowing. The math behind that idea is straightforward, but the public’s reaction, and Washington’s reluctance to touch it, show how close the program is drifting toward crisis without a clear rescue plan.

Instead of rallying around a solution, Americans are split between expecting cuts, doubting the program will survive, and recoiling when they see the real price tag of saving it. I see a widening gap between what the numbers demand and what voters are willing to accept
Common taxpayers say:Nope!

Removing the income cap removes the link between contributions and benefits. But the extremely wealthy are currently increasing the amount/percentage of wealth & income annually. One could make the argument that it is a fair exchange. I doubt the wealthy will stand for such a change. They are aggrieved that they pay the majority of income taxes and that the working class are freeloaders.

Option B certainly has little support.

Option C. One could make the argument that we are currently on; this option is yearly Social Security increases are just eaten up by Medicare part B premium increases. But this is inadequate to save the existing system. On the present glide path we are looking at a 21% benefit cut.

So new COLA approach-cut COLA on highest beneficiaries.

If inflation in 2035 resulted in a 2 percent COLA and the cap were set at $900, someone receiving a $50,000 benefit per year would normally get a $1,000 increase. Under the cap, that person would instead receive $900. Retirees receiving $45,000 or less in benefits would see no change and would get the same COLA as they do under current law.

The above will be an inadequate fix. But it gets the toe in the door so that it will expanded to include all beneficiaries eventually. Yes even those 22 million that rely entirely upon Social Security. But hey, they never were very productive members of the economy. And the US lifeboat load needs to be lighten.

[1]Key facts about the U.S. national debt | Pew Research Center

3 Likes

Democracy rings out.

Xi has no such debate. Putin kills those who would debate.

The business community reorganizes at light speed. Historically democratic politics were for a quiet status quo.

The control of our hemisphere are pieces on the chessboard aimed at China to respect or meet them power for power, force for force so there is no larger war.

Those among us who would withdraw include the progressives, the moderates, and the conservatives. Ironically Trump professes he will withdraw and does not.

We are breaking all laws. But so is war in all ways of thinking except the excuse to fight it.

If the Democrats want to come in from the cold, the party must declare on all positions. Meaning explain themselves and our orientation for the first time in decades. Breaking with their long capitulation.

I’m gonna put on my optimist hat - let’s see if it still fits!

The latent problems in our democracy, economy, and foreign policy are becoming obvious with TFG fully in charge…of everything.

The silver lining is that more and more people are taking notice. There’s a reason why it’s always darkest before the dawn. Sometimes things must get pretty darn bleak before people wake up and take action.

I’ll keep my points limited to a few economic effects of TFG’s “chaotic mixture of imperial hubris and diplomatic incompetence”.

Who would have thought global trade wars would increase the number of bankruptcies in the US?

Who would have thought TFG could single handedly damage foreign tourism to the US?

“The United States has performed the worst among the top 10 destinations in terms of growth in visits and spending this year over last, according to Tourism Economics. At the same time, countries like Britain, Japan and Greece have posted double-digit percentage gains. By 2031, China is expected to overtake the United States as the world’s largest travel and tourism market, with the industry projected to contribute $3.8 trillion to its gross domestic product, according to the W.T.T.C.”

https://archive.ph/MnaEM

“The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) announced new entrance fees for 11 major national parks in November that will start from January 1, 2026. A move designed to “put American families first,” the DOI’s new pricing structure significantly increases entry costs for international visitors—including Canadians, who will pay up to three times to visit America’s most popular national parks.”

https://www.thetravel.com/nps-new-id-rule-means-americans-may-pay-international-visitor-fees-up-to-250-usd-to-visit-national-parks/

Who would have thought TFG’s attack on science and universities would trigger a brain drain?

It’s been less than a year…Uf! The damage is immense, maybe it was needed to motivate change?

8 Likes

Nah it was idiotic. 20 times over.

1 Like