One more thing to add. Why can’t the United States be like Switzerland, Austria or the Vatican City and just MAGA and stay out of other countries. We can help countries that are our friends in time of need.
I'd leave Vatican City off that list. Historically they had one thing in mind to expand Rome's power over the world at any cost. Enforcing this policy the Vatican turned a blind eye to all manner of atrocities committed by its priests and nuns. Rome has always lived up to its name sake to set the stage for Universal Romanism. There's not a nation on the planet where Rome if allowed a foothold did not purposefully act in destroying the host nations culture.
Bill singles out what he thinks might be a sign of America's trading partners looking for others to trade with:
'Mother of all deals’ India-EU FTA to boost India’s manufacturing and services sectors, strengthen investors’ confidence: PM Modi
‘The trade agreement is expected to be among the most comprehensive that India would sign, which could benefit India’s labor-intensive sectors, ranging from marine products, textiles, footwear and sports goods.’
So the EU, with its strong agricultural and industrial protectionist tendencies, is contemplating increased trade with India, with its strong agricultural and industrial protectionist policies.
It sure sounds good on paper, but I'm a doubter. How many Indian textiles, footwear or tennis shoes will actually be seen by EU producers as not being in direct competiton with EU products. Will Mercedes cars be welcomed in India's very protectionist auto market? Again, I'm a doubter.
And later, to prove his point that the American dollar is no longer trustworthy, Bill mentions alternate media of exchange that can compete with the dollar. Is the long-hyped BRICS exchange finally going to step onto the world stage?
The idea of BRICS grew out of a meeting on the margins of the UN General Assembly in 2006, pushed by then Russian Foreign Minister Primakov. Since then Russia has invaded Ukraine and is bogged down there.
Later on, in 2021, Jim O'Neill of Goldman Sachs said the monetary collective was a failed effort. Could they reconstitute theselves now that the membership has been expanded? Possibly, but their history has not been promising.
All of which is not to say we in the USA should be complacent. But we need to deal with accurate analyses, not the journalists Bill quotes with their hidden agendas.
You ask, "is the long-hyped BRICS exchange finally going to step onto the world stage"?
I would say $5000 gold and $100 silver is a pretty good answer to your inquiry. These metals did not shoot to the moon because the world forgot how to mine them. They simply are the refection of world-wide common sense being applied to the future of our politician's ability to ever balance our budget. Which you and I know ain't going to happen.
15:1 is the historical dollars worth of silver and gold the measure was not based on an ounce of each metal. A dollar's worth of silver currently sits at $91 and gold at $259. A dollars weight of gold measured in silver should be $1365 at that ratio. The formula will not be 100% accurate due the USD.
I think you're conflating two issues: BRICS has nothing to do with the price of gold. I'll agree that the price of gold is a signal about the lack of confidence in the dollar, and that is traceable to the huge debt of the USA. But BRICS did not drive the debt or the price of gold.
So why did BRICS countries all decide to start using gold instead of US T-Bills as their Central Bank Reserves? You don't think that they "thought" if we annually tie-up 1/3 to 1/2 of the current annual production .... the price might just go up?
BB-IMO why should the United States be the protector of the world. We have done that for decades and all we get are countries that hate us, countries that take advantage of us, and countries that have made the economic playing field unfair. Also, the United Nations have always been adversaries to American interests. As far as the dollar most countries have deficits. Maybe going back to the gold standard will improve the financial situation of the world. Most countries have deficits. I disapprove with the US being the savior of the world. AP
Abe, in all seriousness how has the US been a protector of the world. Maybe I'm missing something but It seems like in my lifetime we've been a force from which other countries need protection. Specific cases include the illegal invasion of Iraq based on lies about WMDs resulting in thousands of civilians dead or displaced with no sanctions placed on us. Another case is Syria - Obama and the CIA orchestrate a civil war to overthrow Assad with over 500,000 deaths. Assad was replaced by Al-Jolani a former headchopper with a $10 million US price tag on his head. Al-Jolani of Al-Queda recently visited Trump and the two shared loving glances.
In my book the US has become a force from which other countries need protection.
USA is the protector of the world banking cartel. Every war including Vietnam was to fought to protect their bets in the game of war. WW1 bankers liked the odds a 14 nation alliance against the 4 nation alliance. When the war drug on for 4 years threatening a return on their investment. Woodrow Wilson the fellow who sold his soul the banker's brought USA into the fray. The war to end all wars Progressives are quick to coin a good marketing slogan.
When the dust settled the bankers cleaned up lending to all nations for the great rebuild, with a promise of world peace. Just shy of 21 years the bankers got their next payday in Europe. Europe was tired 5 years later the bankers in control of European banking moved on to Asia hitching its wagon to Korea, then Vietnam. Next up, the Middle East, nothing better than toppling governments for no reason at all. The resulting power vacuum brings in the next slate of bad guys. Throw in a few false flag operations in USA and Europe, take over the freedom to travel, and the right to privacy with the TSA. A dash of Covid Big Pharma gets its turn. Proxy wars with Russia, and China destroy Haiti.
Is Trump to blame for all of this? Not at all, I believe the plan to slow the boat in hopes something close to what America was might emerge after the SHTF. As an investor, he's well aware the national debt was past ever paying off after Nixon decoupled the UST from gold. One cannot pay off a debt with a debt note.
Remember the bankers slogan:"The U.S. dollar backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, meaning its value relies on the government's ability to generate revenue through taxes and debt". Taxes is the key word, simply put the citizen is on the hook to the bankers.
The easy solution one I think 90% of Americans would embrace. Dissolve the Federal Reserve, all Federal Reserve notes would got to zero, all debts would go to zero. All assets would see a massive deflation to actual value. All savings in fait would go to zero. Real Estate taxes would be illegal on every level. A flat tax would be levied on all income. The death penalty for counterfeiting would be expanded to include Congress. The nation would return to be government as a Constitutional Republic. Lawyers would be banned from holding public office. The assets of the banking families and any government official who profited from insider trading would be confiscated and directed to the US Treasury.
The US has done some terrible things, maybe by getting improper information, bad actors, and stupidity. Why does the US. Have to finance the UN, WHO and other organizations. Why can’t ALL countries participate equally. That has never happened; all look at America. AP
Don't give them an easy out with the excuse of stupidity. Maybe the US finances world organizations so they can control them, who knows. But I too would love to see an non-interventionist military policy, plus a cutback in 800 bases around the world. Ron Paul was one of the few candidates espousing such a position and the last decent candidate I voted for.
They got infiltrated by the neocons. No matter what, the same type of people end up in charge behind the curtains. Look what happened to the left - they went from anti-war and anti-intervention to war is useful to bring democracy to the world.
Abe. Please let me see your good list. I'm curious. Maybe I misses something.
But we can add some more evil actions - Obomber and Hillary decide to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya and replace him with chaos. Gaddafi had made the mistake of giving up his nuclear program which would have protected him from the US - just ask North Korea about that. Libya went from the highest living standard in Africa to a hell whole where you can buy slaves. Then we can visit Operation Condor in which the US overthrows the democratically elected president of Chile and replace him with a military dictator. During Condor we support brutal dictatorships throughout South America. And the list goes on!
Wondering and asking the sage (BB) what would happen if the US came out with the statement and backed up that going forward the U.S. would provide the Liquidity, stability, and neutrality of the dollar?
No more weaponization of the financial instruments.
I also wonder, had Russia for example been able to access their 300 or so billion, would it be pretty much exhausted by now?
What would the effect be on the U.S. and world economies?
I’d imagine it would depend on who’s making the statement. The Donald would certainly wrap it up as the most beautiful statement the world has ever seen, but beauty is generally skin deep and his appears particularly thin ~
Countries have interests, not friends, somebody important once said. Trump is making that plain every day. He also, I believe, will minimize our boots on the ground around the world, avoiding the worst decisions of the last 25 years. As for rescuing the currency, that will take divine intervention.
Trump might minimize boots on the ground but he's actually out bombing Biden so far in his second terms. Plus, looks like he might attack Iran again. Lots of US ships in the region. Someone once said - No matter who you vote for you get another John McCain.
Cartero-I’m not sure about the bombings but I truly believe Trump is more interested in peace in the world rather than bombings. The US over the years has done many many terrible things. We have also done many wonderful things. I.e. we are usually the first responders when a catastrophe hits a country. Actually Israel has always been part of the first responders as in Haiti. Nothing is perfect. AP
Could you list the wonderful things? Here's a short list of negative, evil things our government has done to their countries: 1953 overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran and install a dictator the Shah. 1956-overthrow the democratic Guatemalan government and install a military dictator who proceeds to kill more than 200,000 indigenous people. 1960s- spray Vietnam with toxic Agent Orange that kills and maims civilians and actually kills more US soldiers than the Viet Cong did. 1979- using Operation Cyclone the US organizes the original Al-Queda to destabilize the Afghan government and draw Russia into an intervention. Carter's National Security Advisor Brzezinski brags that he gave Russia their own Vietnam and the Russian defeat outweighed any problems caused by rise of jihadi terrorists. That's a small list. Now for the good thing list!
First of all the US has done many terrible things, I agree. America has also done much more good. It took me a while to look up ma few things because there are so many. I will just name a few:
1. Humanitarian HIV/AIDS public health intervention, eradication of smallpox, and much of polio, global funding for malaria, covid-19.
Abe, I'm not here to argue. I do have a question though. Do you suppose that at this point the rest of the world is hoping for more U.S. involvement ot less?
Just ask Chat...The United States has spent decades shaping global stability, rebuilding shattered regions, fighting disease, and supporting humanitarian relief. Across Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, U.S. programs have saved millions of lives, rebuilt economies, and strengthened international institutions.
Do you have any links for the help we have provided to the Middle East? I've only seen death and destruction caused by us in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Gaza. Of course we have provided significant aid to Israel and are indirectly helping them fund national health care.
Here's what Grok says about US involvement in Africa:" An independent, evidence-based analysis would conclude that US involvement has been a mixed bag, with significant help in humanitarian and health sectors outweighing harms there, but substantial damage in political and security realms tipping the scale toward net harm in many cases".
But Grok fails to consider the damage the US did to Libya. That should tip the scale for the mess we left Libya in. In fact part of the flood of refugees into Europe is a result of the murder of Gaddafi.
Larry Johnson thinks the dollar has been stable? Liquid surely as we have flooded the world with dollars. Stable not so much - the dollar has lost 88% of its value since 1971.
Yes, having the reserve currency is an exorbitant privilege.... **if you are wealthy.**
Low costs also resulted in the export of huge chunks of our industrial base and hollowed out the blue collar middle class. Trump is trying to reverse that. If he succeeds, and other countries drop the dollar and rely on THEMSELVES for defense, would that not be a good thing?? From my perspective, the financialization of the economy, facilitated by the reserve currency, has been a disaster.
Bill, you're far too logical! Do you mean that if the government of the USA expects other countries to keep their agreements, especially the ones that benefit us, it has to keep its agreements--even the ones we don't want to keep? That is going to be too much of a stretch for the America-firsters and fanatic ideologues. Aren't you aware that us Judeo-Christians are superior to everyone else, whether it be a country, a country's leader or any citizen of that country? Don't you realize that Netanyahu and Trump are franchised by God himself? And that, by association, so are their lovers? What's wrong with you? Are you REALLY infected with TDS?
The same freedom and democracy Chile under Allende got, the same freedom Iraq got after the overthrow of Saddam Husain, the same freedom and democracy Afghanistan got after the failed overthrow of the Taliban ......??
Why, does the US feel compelled through manning its 800 military bases around the world, to interfere in the domestic affairs of other countries?
US $38 and growing trillion debt is unsustainable yet DJT wants to add a further $500 billion to the almost $1trillion military budget.
Does anyone believe that any nation would attempt to launch an attack on the US even if it so wished. The US appears to be rubbing its erstwhile "friends" up the wrong way and the list of those wishing its downfall is only increasing.
It would appear that the empire's downfall is self inflicted and all that is needed is to buy the popcorn, sit back and watch. As Sun Tzu stated; never interfere with the enemy when it is causing its own demise"
Maybe the point is that no matter what route one takes, getting out of the "global empire" business is a difficult and painful step but the least painful and difficult way to take that path is to get started ASAP.. Some other candidates will be trying to replace the USA, and I think they will find the path TO empire more challenging than they expect.
There is a history one can reference for guidance. (h/t Perplexity Pro)
Who in late 19th century USA was skeptical of imperial aspirations and how did they organize and publicize their anti-imperial sentiments?
Several overlapping groups in the late 19th‑century United States became skeptical of imperial expansion, especially around the Spanish‑American War and the annexation debate of 1898, and they developed quite structured ways to organize and publicize their dissent.
Major skeptical constituencies
Classical‑liberal and reform Republicans/Democrats (e.g., Carl Schurz, Moorfield Storey, George F. Hoar, E.L. Godkin) argued that ruling colonies without consent betrayed republican principles and the “spirit of 1776.”
The American Anti‑Imperialist League brought together Boston Brahmins, reformers, Protestant ministers, socialists, and some labor figures; it became the best‑known institutional expression of anti‑imperial sentiment after 1898.
Labor leaders and segments of the workers’ movement, including figures like Samuel Gompers and Eugene V. Debs, opposed annexation on grounds that colonial expansion would militarize the republic, undercut wages, and import cheap labor.
Populists and agrarian radicals often linked anti‑imperialism to hostility toward “money power,” arguing that wars and colonies served financiers, railroads, and export capital rather than farmers and small producers.
African American intellectuals and activists drew connections between empire, Jim Crow, and racial violence, criticizing the hypocrisy of spreading “civilization” abroad while denying rights at home.
Religious and moral critics (notably many Protestant clergy) framed imperialism as a betrayal of Christian ethics and a form of oppressive “worldliness” inconsistent with genuine missionary work.
Organizational forms
The American Anti‑Imperialist League (founded June 15, 1898 in Boston) became the central coordinating body.
It had national officers, local branches, dues‑paying memberships, and a formal constitution centered on the principle of “consent of the governed.”
Boston, New York, Chicago, and other cities hosted especially active branches that held mass meetings and coordinated petitions.
Various specialized committees and affiliated groups formed within or alongside the League: college chapters, women’s auxiliaries, ministerial committees, and local “anti‑annexation” clubs.
Labor organizations (notably parts of the American Federation of Labor and socialist locals) debated imperialism at conventions and passed formal anti‑annexation resolutions, sometimes coordinating with League figures but also operating through their own union structures.
Populist and third‑party organizations used their party conventions, state committees, and newspapers to connect anti‑imperial planks with currency and railroad regulation demands.
African American activists used Black churches, fraternal orders, newspapers, and civic associations to articulate a specifically racialized critique of empire as an extension of white supremacy.
Methods of publicity and persuasion
Pamphlets, tracts, and memorials:
The Anti‑Imperialist League produced widely circulated pamphlets, reprinted speeches, and “platform” statements arguing that colonial rule violated the Declaration of Independence and Lincoln’s vision of government “of the people, by the people, for the people.”
They submitted formal memorials and petitions to Congress opposing annexation of the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and other territories.
Mass meetings and lecture campaigns:
The League organized high‑profile meetings in places like Faneuil Hall in Boston (notably the June 15, 1898 protest meeting convened by Gamaliel Bradford) and used well‑known orators—senators, ministers, and writers—to draw press attention.
Speakers toured cities and college campuses to denounce imperialism as unconstitutional and morally corrupting.
Newspapers and periodicals:
Anti‑imperialist essays appeared in mainstream papers and opinion journals (e.g., the Boston Evening Transcript published Bradford’s initial call to organize).
Labor and Populist presses framed imperialism as a project of capital and a threat to workers and farmers, while Black newspapers highlighted racial double standards and colonial repression.
Electoral politics and party platforms:
Anti‑imperialist arguments entered presidential campaigns (especially 1900) via Democratic, Populist, and socialist candidates who criticized annexation and permanent colonial rule in their platforms and stump speeches.
Resolutions at party and union conventions linked anti‑imperialism to broader reform programs (anti‑trust, monetary reform, labor rights).
Legal‑constitutional argumentation:
Lawyers and constitutionalists within the movement published legal briefs and essays arguing that governing “subject peoples” without full rights undermined the republic and created a dangerous precedent later seen in the Insular Cases.
Central themes in their critique
Republicanism vs. empire: ruling overseas possessions without consent was portrayed as fundamentally incompatible with a republic, echoing Revolutionary‑era rhetoric.
Racial and domestic hypocrisy: many critics emphasized that a nation enforcing segregation and lynching at home had no moral authority to “civilize” others abroad, a point made particularly sharply by African American commentators.
Economic and class interests: agrarian and labor critics argued that imperialism served financiers, export merchants, and large corporations, while shifting tax and military burdens onto workers and farmers.
Fear of militarism and executive power: they warned that permanent colonies would require a standing army, navy, and stronger executive, threatening civil liberties and republican checks and balances.
Illustrative example: the Boston core
In June 1898, Gamaliel Bradford’s open letter in a Boston newspaper invited citizens to protest an “imperial policy” and led directly to the founding meeting of the American Anti‑Imperialist League at Faneuil Hall.
From this base, the League distributed literature nationwide, coordinated with like‑minded politicians and editors, and helped make anti‑imperialism a visible, if minority, current in US public life at the turn of the century.
I think it's noteworthy that the U.S., despite having the benefit of reserve currency lower interest rates, currently pays higher rates than Japan, Germany, France but ~the same as Italy for 10-year debt.
One more thing to add. Why can’t the United States be like Switzerland, Austria or the Vatican City and just MAGA and stay out of other countries. We can help countries that are our friends in time of need.
I'd leave Vatican City off that list. Historically they had one thing in mind to expand Rome's power over the world at any cost. Enforcing this policy the Vatican turned a blind eye to all manner of atrocities committed by its priests and nuns. Rome has always lived up to its name sake to set the stage for Universal Romanism. There's not a nation on the planet where Rome if allowed a foothold did not purposefully act in destroying the host nations culture.
Exactly, Abe.
Bill singles out what he thinks might be a sign of America's trading partners looking for others to trade with:
'Mother of all deals’ India-EU FTA to boost India’s manufacturing and services sectors, strengthen investors’ confidence: PM Modi
‘The trade agreement is expected to be among the most comprehensive that India would sign, which could benefit India’s labor-intensive sectors, ranging from marine products, textiles, footwear and sports goods.’
So the EU, with its strong agricultural and industrial protectionist tendencies, is contemplating increased trade with India, with its strong agricultural and industrial protectionist policies.
It sure sounds good on paper, but I'm a doubter. How many Indian textiles, footwear or tennis shoes will actually be seen by EU producers as not being in direct competiton with EU products. Will Mercedes cars be welcomed in India's very protectionist auto market? Again, I'm a doubter.
And later, to prove his point that the American dollar is no longer trustworthy, Bill mentions alternate media of exchange that can compete with the dollar. Is the long-hyped BRICS exchange finally going to step onto the world stage?
The idea of BRICS grew out of a meeting on the margins of the UN General Assembly in 2006, pushed by then Russian Foreign Minister Primakov. Since then Russia has invaded Ukraine and is bogged down there.
Later on, in 2021, Jim O'Neill of Goldman Sachs said the monetary collective was a failed effort. Could they reconstitute theselves now that the membership has been expanded? Possibly, but their history has not been promising.
All of which is not to say we in the USA should be complacent. But we need to deal with accurate analyses, not the journalists Bill quotes with their hidden agendas.
You ask, "is the long-hyped BRICS exchange finally going to step onto the world stage"?
I would say $5000 gold and $100 silver is a pretty good answer to your inquiry. These metals did not shoot to the moon because the world forgot how to mine them. They simply are the refection of world-wide common sense being applied to the future of our politician's ability to ever balance our budget. Which you and I know ain't going to happen.
15:1 is the historical dollars worth of silver and gold the measure was not based on an ounce of each metal. A dollar's worth of silver currently sits at $91 and gold at $259. A dollars weight of gold measured in silver should be $1365 at that ratio. The formula will not be 100% accurate due the USD.
I think you're conflating two issues: BRICS has nothing to do with the price of gold. I'll agree that the price of gold is a signal about the lack of confidence in the dollar, and that is traceable to the huge debt of the USA. But BRICS did not drive the debt or the price of gold.
So why did BRICS countries all decide to start using gold instead of US T-Bills as their Central Bank Reserves? You don't think that they "thought" if we annually tie-up 1/3 to 1/2 of the current annual production .... the price might just go up?
BB-IMO why should the United States be the protector of the world. We have done that for decades and all we get are countries that hate us, countries that take advantage of us, and countries that have made the economic playing field unfair. Also, the United Nations have always been adversaries to American interests. As far as the dollar most countries have deficits. Maybe going back to the gold standard will improve the financial situation of the world. Most countries have deficits. I disapprove with the US being the savior of the world. AP
Abe, in all seriousness how has the US been a protector of the world. Maybe I'm missing something but It seems like in my lifetime we've been a force from which other countries need protection. Specific cases include the illegal invasion of Iraq based on lies about WMDs resulting in thousands of civilians dead or displaced with no sanctions placed on us. Another case is Syria - Obama and the CIA orchestrate a civil war to overthrow Assad with over 500,000 deaths. Assad was replaced by Al-Jolani a former headchopper with a $10 million US price tag on his head. Al-Jolani of Al-Queda recently visited Trump and the two shared loving glances.
In my book the US has become a force from which other countries need protection.
USA is the protector of the world banking cartel. Every war including Vietnam was to fought to protect their bets in the game of war. WW1 bankers liked the odds a 14 nation alliance against the 4 nation alliance. When the war drug on for 4 years threatening a return on their investment. Woodrow Wilson the fellow who sold his soul the banker's brought USA into the fray. The war to end all wars Progressives are quick to coin a good marketing slogan.
When the dust settled the bankers cleaned up lending to all nations for the great rebuild, with a promise of world peace. Just shy of 21 years the bankers got their next payday in Europe. Europe was tired 5 years later the bankers in control of European banking moved on to Asia hitching its wagon to Korea, then Vietnam. Next up, the Middle East, nothing better than toppling governments for no reason at all. The resulting power vacuum brings in the next slate of bad guys. Throw in a few false flag operations in USA and Europe, take over the freedom to travel, and the right to privacy with the TSA. A dash of Covid Big Pharma gets its turn. Proxy wars with Russia, and China destroy Haiti.
Is Trump to blame for all of this? Not at all, I believe the plan to slow the boat in hopes something close to what America was might emerge after the SHTF. As an investor, he's well aware the national debt was past ever paying off after Nixon decoupled the UST from gold. One cannot pay off a debt with a debt note.
Remember the bankers slogan:"The U.S. dollar backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, meaning its value relies on the government's ability to generate revenue through taxes and debt". Taxes is the key word, simply put the citizen is on the hook to the bankers.
The easy solution one I think 90% of Americans would embrace. Dissolve the Federal Reserve, all Federal Reserve notes would got to zero, all debts would go to zero. All assets would see a massive deflation to actual value. All savings in fait would go to zero. Real Estate taxes would be illegal on every level. A flat tax would be levied on all income. The death penalty for counterfeiting would be expanded to include Congress. The nation would return to be government as a Constitutional Republic. Lawyers would be banned from holding public office. The assets of the banking families and any government official who profited from insider trading would be confiscated and directed to the US Treasury.
😂😂 in a perfect world, my friend.
Cartero:
The US has done some terrible things, maybe by getting improper information, bad actors, and stupidity. Why does the US. Have to finance the UN, WHO and other organizations. Why can’t ALL countries participate equally. That has never happened; all look at America. AP
Don't give them an easy out with the excuse of stupidity. Maybe the US finances world organizations so they can control them, who knows. But I too would love to see an non-interventionist military policy, plus a cutback in 800 bases around the world. Ron Paul was one of the few candidates espousing such a position and the last decent candidate I voted for.
I was a huge Ron Paul supporter. He was just one loan voice and a wilderness of corruption.
Yeah ! What happened to all the Teabagers like Ron who were to saves us all a few yrs ago.
They got infiltrated by the neocons. No matter what, the same type of people end up in charge behind the curtains. Look what happened to the left - they went from anti-war and anti-intervention to war is useful to bring democracy to the world.
Cartero
I agree on the bod the U.S. has done
The good list is much much longer
AP
Abe. Please let me see your good list. I'm curious. Maybe I misses something.
But we can add some more evil actions - Obomber and Hillary decide to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya and replace him with chaos. Gaddafi had made the mistake of giving up his nuclear program which would have protected him from the US - just ask North Korea about that. Libya went from the highest living standard in Africa to a hell whole where you can buy slaves. Then we can visit Operation Condor in which the US overthrows the democratically elected president of Chile and replace him with a military dictator. During Condor we support brutal dictatorships throughout South America. And the list goes on!
I think there is inherent protection for America when we protect many parts of the world.
It is in our best interest. Expensive yes, resentful yes, necessary yes.
Wondering and asking the sage (BB) what would happen if the US came out with the statement and backed up that going forward the U.S. would provide the Liquidity, stability, and neutrality of the dollar?
No more weaponization of the financial instruments.
I also wonder, had Russia for example been able to access their 300 or so billion, would it be pretty much exhausted by now?
What would the effect be on the U.S. and world economies?
I’d imagine it would depend on who’s making the statement. The Donald would certainly wrap it up as the most beautiful statement the world has ever seen, but beauty is generally skin deep and his appears particularly thin ~
Countries have interests, not friends, somebody important once said. Trump is making that plain every day. He also, I believe, will minimize our boots on the ground around the world, avoiding the worst decisions of the last 25 years. As for rescuing the currency, that will take divine intervention.
Trump might minimize boots on the ground but he's actually out bombing Biden so far in his second terms. Plus, looks like he might attack Iran again. Lots of US ships in the region. Someone once said - No matter who you vote for you get another John McCain.
Cartero-I’m not sure about the bombings but I truly believe Trump is more interested in peace in the world rather than bombings. The US over the years has done many many terrible things. We have also done many wonderful things. I.e. we are usually the first responders when a catastrophe hits a country. Actually Israel has always been part of the first responders as in Haiti. Nothing is perfect. AP
Could you list the wonderful things? Here's a short list of negative, evil things our government has done to their countries: 1953 overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran and install a dictator the Shah. 1956-overthrow the democratic Guatemalan government and install a military dictator who proceeds to kill more than 200,000 indigenous people. 1960s- spray Vietnam with toxic Agent Orange that kills and maims civilians and actually kills more US soldiers than the Viet Cong did. 1979- using Operation Cyclone the US organizes the original Al-Queda to destabilize the Afghan government and draw Russia into an intervention. Carter's National Security Advisor Brzezinski brags that he gave Russia their own Vietnam and the Russian defeat outweighed any problems caused by rise of jihadi terrorists. That's a small list. Now for the good thing list!
First of all the US has done many terrible things, I agree. America has also done much more good. It took me a while to look up ma few things because there are so many. I will just name a few:
1. Humanitarian HIV/AIDS public health intervention, eradication of smallpox, and much of polio, global funding for malaria, covid-19.
2. Disaster reliefs for earthquakes, tsunamis, famine, pandemics, Haiti, Ebola, covid aid.
3. Support for democratic transitions for South Korea, Taiwan and some Latin American countries.
4. U.S. pressure contributed to the end of apartheid.
5. In science and technology, the internet, GPS, etc
6. Peacekeeping and conflict mediation in Northern Ireland, balkans, Egypt-Israel peace.
7. Environmental protections, clean water and air.
8. Accepted millions of refugees from other countries.
AND MUCH MORE.
Abe, I'm not here to argue. I do have a question though. Do you suppose that at this point the rest of the world is hoping for more U.S. involvement ot less?
Less involvement/more free money.
Just ask Chat...The United States has spent decades shaping global stability, rebuilding shattered regions, fighting disease, and supporting humanitarian relief. Across Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, U.S. programs have saved millions of lives, rebuilt economies, and strengthened international institutions.
Do you have any links for the help we have provided to the Middle East? I've only seen death and destruction caused by us in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Gaza. Of course we have provided significant aid to Israel and are indirectly helping them fund national health care.
https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R46344/R46344.8.pdf
https://foreignassistance.gov/
https://www.openthebooks.com/substack-middle-east-received-21-billion-in-us-foreign-aid-under-biden-administration/
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46344
https://www.cfr.org/articles/us-forces-middle-east-mapping-military-presence
Here's what Grok says about US involvement in Africa:" An independent, evidence-based analysis would conclude that US involvement has been a mixed bag, with significant help in humanitarian and health sectors outweighing harms there, but substantial damage in political and security realms tipping the scale toward net harm in many cases".
But Grok fails to consider the damage the US did to Libya. That should tip the scale for the mess we left Libya in. In fact part of the flood of refugees into Europe is a result of the murder of Gaddafi.
Thanks to Hillary and Barrack.
Larry Johnson thinks the dollar has been stable? Liquid surely as we have flooded the world with dollars. Stable not so much - the dollar has lost 88% of its value since 1971.
Ha ha ha. The cradle? Washington post? CBS? Let’s try a little harder for credible sources, huh?
Yes, having the reserve currency is an exorbitant privilege.... **if you are wealthy.**
Low costs also resulted in the export of huge chunks of our industrial base and hollowed out the blue collar middle class. Trump is trying to reverse that. If he succeeds, and other countries drop the dollar and rely on THEMSELVES for defense, would that not be a good thing?? From my perspective, the financialization of the economy, facilitated by the reserve currency, has been a disaster.
I told them 25 years ago, Bush, Obama and Trump... you keep sanctioning and folks will get upset.
Discombobulation. What a clarifying description of events? Providing insight by your friend Bill.
Bill, you're far too logical! Do you mean that if the government of the USA expects other countries to keep their agreements, especially the ones that benefit us, it has to keep its agreements--even the ones we don't want to keep? That is going to be too much of a stretch for the America-firsters and fanatic ideologues. Aren't you aware that us Judeo-Christians are superior to everyone else, whether it be a country, a country's leader or any citizen of that country? Don't you realize that Netanyahu and Trump are franchised by God himself? And that, by association, so are their lovers? What's wrong with you? Are you REALLY infected with TDS?
By extention the Ayatollah was franchised by Allah. Neither franchise has been particularly helpful historically to the development of civilization.
ED ,, THIS IS A JOKE, I HOPE!!!!
Remember Bill, that our only interest in Iran is promoting freedom and democracy.
The same freedom and democracy Chile under Allende got, the same freedom Iraq got after the overthrow of Saddam Husain, the same freedom and democracy Afghanistan got after the failed overthrow of the Taliban ......??
Why, does the US feel compelled through manning its 800 military bases around the world, to interfere in the domestic affairs of other countries?
US $38 and growing trillion debt is unsustainable yet DJT wants to add a further $500 billion to the almost $1trillion military budget.
Does anyone believe that any nation would attempt to launch an attack on the US even if it so wished. The US appears to be rubbing its erstwhile "friends" up the wrong way and the list of those wishing its downfall is only increasing.
It would appear that the empire's downfall is self inflicted and all that is needed is to buy the popcorn, sit back and watch. As Sun Tzu stated; never interfere with the enemy when it is causing its own demise"
Amen Andre. I could not agree more.
I believe XI Jinping is simply practicing those "hard core" Sun Tzu lessons.
Maybe the point is that no matter what route one takes, getting out of the "global empire" business is a difficult and painful step but the least painful and difficult way to take that path is to get started ASAP.. Some other candidates will be trying to replace the USA, and I think they will find the path TO empire more challenging than they expect.
There is a history one can reference for guidance. (h/t Perplexity Pro)
Who in late 19th century USA was skeptical of imperial aspirations and how did they organize and publicize their anti-imperial sentiments?
Several overlapping groups in the late 19th‑century United States became skeptical of imperial expansion, especially around the Spanish‑American War and the annexation debate of 1898, and they developed quite structured ways to organize and publicize their dissent.
Major skeptical constituencies
Classical‑liberal and reform Republicans/Democrats (e.g., Carl Schurz, Moorfield Storey, George F. Hoar, E.L. Godkin) argued that ruling colonies without consent betrayed republican principles and the “spirit of 1776.”
The American Anti‑Imperialist League brought together Boston Brahmins, reformers, Protestant ministers, socialists, and some labor figures; it became the best‑known institutional expression of anti‑imperial sentiment after 1898.
Labor leaders and segments of the workers’ movement, including figures like Samuel Gompers and Eugene V. Debs, opposed annexation on grounds that colonial expansion would militarize the republic, undercut wages, and import cheap labor.
Populists and agrarian radicals often linked anti‑imperialism to hostility toward “money power,” arguing that wars and colonies served financiers, railroads, and export capital rather than farmers and small producers.
African American intellectuals and activists drew connections between empire, Jim Crow, and racial violence, criticizing the hypocrisy of spreading “civilization” abroad while denying rights at home.
Religious and moral critics (notably many Protestant clergy) framed imperialism as a betrayal of Christian ethics and a form of oppressive “worldliness” inconsistent with genuine missionary work.
Organizational forms
The American Anti‑Imperialist League (founded June 15, 1898 in Boston) became the central coordinating body.
It had national officers, local branches, dues‑paying memberships, and a formal constitution centered on the principle of “consent of the governed.”
Boston, New York, Chicago, and other cities hosted especially active branches that held mass meetings and coordinated petitions.
Various specialized committees and affiliated groups formed within or alongside the League: college chapters, women’s auxiliaries, ministerial committees, and local “anti‑annexation” clubs.
Labor organizations (notably parts of the American Federation of Labor and socialist locals) debated imperialism at conventions and passed formal anti‑annexation resolutions, sometimes coordinating with League figures but also operating through their own union structures.
Populist and third‑party organizations used their party conventions, state committees, and newspapers to connect anti‑imperial planks with currency and railroad regulation demands.
African American activists used Black churches, fraternal orders, newspapers, and civic associations to articulate a specifically racialized critique of empire as an extension of white supremacy.
Methods of publicity and persuasion
Pamphlets, tracts, and memorials:
The Anti‑Imperialist League produced widely circulated pamphlets, reprinted speeches, and “platform” statements arguing that colonial rule violated the Declaration of Independence and Lincoln’s vision of government “of the people, by the people, for the people.”
They submitted formal memorials and petitions to Congress opposing annexation of the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and other territories.
Mass meetings and lecture campaigns:
The League organized high‑profile meetings in places like Faneuil Hall in Boston (notably the June 15, 1898 protest meeting convened by Gamaliel Bradford) and used well‑known orators—senators, ministers, and writers—to draw press attention.
Speakers toured cities and college campuses to denounce imperialism as unconstitutional and morally corrupting.
Newspapers and periodicals:
Anti‑imperialist essays appeared in mainstream papers and opinion journals (e.g., the Boston Evening Transcript published Bradford’s initial call to organize).
Labor and Populist presses framed imperialism as a project of capital and a threat to workers and farmers, while Black newspapers highlighted racial double standards and colonial repression.
Electoral politics and party platforms:
Anti‑imperialist arguments entered presidential campaigns (especially 1900) via Democratic, Populist, and socialist candidates who criticized annexation and permanent colonial rule in their platforms and stump speeches.
Resolutions at party and union conventions linked anti‑imperialism to broader reform programs (anti‑trust, monetary reform, labor rights).
Legal‑constitutional argumentation:
Lawyers and constitutionalists within the movement published legal briefs and essays arguing that governing “subject peoples” without full rights undermined the republic and created a dangerous precedent later seen in the Insular Cases.
Central themes in their critique
Republicanism vs. empire: ruling overseas possessions without consent was portrayed as fundamentally incompatible with a republic, echoing Revolutionary‑era rhetoric.
Racial and domestic hypocrisy: many critics emphasized that a nation enforcing segregation and lynching at home had no moral authority to “civilize” others abroad, a point made particularly sharply by African American commentators.
Economic and class interests: agrarian and labor critics argued that imperialism served financiers, export merchants, and large corporations, while shifting tax and military burdens onto workers and farmers.
Fear of militarism and executive power: they warned that permanent colonies would require a standing army, navy, and stronger executive, threatening civil liberties and republican checks and balances.
Illustrative example: the Boston core
In June 1898, Gamaliel Bradford’s open letter in a Boston newspaper invited citizens to protest an “imperial policy” and led directly to the founding meeting of the American Anti‑Imperialist League at Faneuil Hall.
From this base, the League distributed literature nationwide, coordinated with like‑minded politicians and editors, and helped make anti‑imperialism a visible, if minority, current in US public life at the turn of the century.
How did you come up with that list? Photographic memory?
I think it's noteworthy that the U.S., despite having the benefit of reserve currency lower interest rates, currently pays higher rates than Japan, Germany, France but ~the same as Italy for 10-year debt.
Pertaining to Iran Bill, all done with the hope of regime change from within.
Have a new email adress, how do I notify you