If most non-Americans want America to stop meddling with world affairs ...

[Shadowmelded]

Hey Skroe, where did you get that chart from? Every source i get through google says China holds the largest portion of our foreign debt with Japan not far behind.

That's consistent with the chart.

[Annoying]

Hey Skroe, where did you get that chart from? Every source i get through google says China holds the largest portion of our foreign debt with Japan not far behind.

That chart shows exactly what you're saying. Belgium is the 2.1% sliver, not the 13.8% -- The chart is just colored terribly. The 13.8% is the U.S. Federal reserve.

[timberx]

That chart shows exactly what you're saying. Belgium is the 2.1% sliver, not the 13.8% -- The chart is just colored terribly. The 13.8% is the U.S. Federal reserve.

Oh ok, gotcha. Yes, seems both Skroe and I are colorblind.

[Marcellus1986]

And Pearl Harbour was the Japanese response to American harassment of its Merchant Fleet and the American Airmen in China, who were on "vacation" (just like Russian Troops Ukraine).

The difference being the Russian government actively encourages their troops to do that. The Flying Tigers were volunteers and weren't explicitly supported by the US govt. There have been many theories posted about why the Japanese attacked... Pretty much all of them point to economic reasons (i.e. Oil embargo), and nothing to do with any "harassment"

[zenkai]

Non Americans don't want us involved

Then when the shit hits the fan they say "why won't the US do something?"

[Independent voter]

Non Americans don't want us involved

Then when the shit hits the fan they say "why won't the US do something?"

Bosnia Herzegovina and Serbia, both sides complained about US action and non action.

[Skroe]

That chart shows exactly what you're saying. Belgium is the 2.1% sliver, not the 13.8% -- The chart is just colored terribly. The 13.8% is the U.S. Federal reserve.

Holy christ yeah I'm blind as a bat.

TBH that sounded wrong when I wrote it, but I went with it. I should have known better, but you know... early morning lol.

- - - Updated - - -

Hey Skroe, where did you get that chart from? Every source i get through google says China holds the largest portion of our foreign debt with Japan not far behind.

Okay as others posted, I slightly screwed up in my interpretation because the coloring is terrible. But only slightly.

China is the largest FOREIGN holder of our debt. The graph you probably see is this one.



Alas, here's the rub (to one degree or another)



Foreign debt is a subset of total debt.

By the way, you know who would have LOVED this arrangement? Alexander Hamiliton, founding father.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/opinion/in-hamiltons-debt.html

In that report, Hamilton proposed that the federal government assume and honor all of the debts individual states had run up during the Revolutionary War, imposing new tariffs on imported goods to raise the needed revenue. He believed that doing so would produce important benefits, which I’ll get to in a minute.

First, however, I think it’s interesting to ask how such a proposal would be received today.

On the left, it would surely be denounced as a bailout — a giveaway to speculators who had purchased devalued debt for pennies on the dollar, and would reap large capital gains. Indeed, a fair bit of the report is devoted to explaining why trying to prevent such windfall gains, via “discrimination between the different classes of creditors,” would be impractical and unwise.

Meanwhile, on the right — well, Hamilton was calling for a tax increase, which modern conservatives oppose under any and all circumstances. Luckily for him, there was no Club for Growth to demand his impeachment.

But why did Hamilton want to take on those state debts? Partly to establish a national reputation as a reliable borrower, so that funds could be raised cheaply in the future. Partly, also, to give wealthy, influential investors a stake in the new federal government, thereby creating a powerful pro-federal constituency.

Beyond that, however, Hamilton argued that the existence of a significant, indeed fairly large national debt would be good for business. Why? Because “in countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and an object of established confidence, it answers most of the purposes of money.” That is, bonds issued by the U.S. government would provide a safe, easily traded asset that the private sector could use as a store of value, as collateral for deals, and in general as a lubricant for business activity. As a result, the debt would become a “national blessing,” making the economy more productive.

This argument anticipates, to a remarkable degree, one of the hottest ideas in modern macroeconomics: the notion that we are suffering from a global “safe asset shortage.” The private sector, according to this argument, can’t function well without a sufficient pool of assets whose value isn’t in question — and for a variety of reasons, there just aren’t enough such assets these days.

As a result, investors have been bidding up the prices of government debt, leading to incredibly low interest rates. But it would be better for almost everyone, the story goes, if governments were to issue more debt, investing the proceeds in much-needed infrastructure even while providing the private sector with the collateral it needs to function. And it’s a very persuasive story to just about everyone who has looked hard at the evidence.

[Annoying]

Holy christ yeah I'm blind as a bat.

TBH that sounded wrong when I wrote it, but I went with it. I should have known better, but you know... early morning lol.

- - - Updated - - -


Okay as others posted, I slightly screwed up in my interpretation because the coloring is terrible. But only slightly.

China is the largest FOREIGN holder of our debt. The graph you probably see is this one.

Alas, here's the rub (to one degree or another)

Foreign debt is a subset of total debt.

By the way, you know who would have LOVED this arrangement? Alexander Hamiliton, founding father.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/op...tons-debt.html

Much better charts with good colors and labels. Nice find.

[Vash The Stampede]

The world is too intertwined for any country to separate itself from the world. You would cause massive issues for everyone around the world. Like it or not, it's a world economy, and world society.

[Deleted]

No, because Trump is a twat. To give you an idea of how much of a twat he is, the Putin shills on this website like him.

And why would we want an ally to regress by having him in charge? Some people here may want that for the US, but some people here want to watch the world burn.

and here I thought endless wars n adding new ones makes the world burn...but pulling out makes the world burn? Lol do you even believe the stuff you say??

[Kalis]

and here I thought endless wars n adding new ones makes the world burn...but pulling out makes the world burn? Lol do you even believe the stuff you say??

I know that you do not believe anything that you say, you just toe the party line like a good little Putinista, regardless of the nonsense you have to spout in order to do so.

[RoxyBlue]

America meddles because when the shit hits the fan its who the rest of the world calls on. Now imagine America steps back and washes her hands of the world, they go isolated. Big country they have resources, some nutter country decides to attack a country in Europe. Over time this nutter country gets a few more militant countries under its banner and now you are looking at a full scale war. Normally the force of USA intervention would be enough to halt any full attack, but no America agreed to never meddle in world disputes anymore. So whos going to stop this spiraling disaster? Russia? China? what superpower will intervene on Europe's behalf?

What I am saying is there are few countries in the world that can put out the force that can deter a full scale invasion or all out war on countries in Europe. And of those countries there are even fewer that would help and not possibly join in the attack themselves against Europe. So yeah America can stay out of it, but America is the reason there hasnt been an all out war in Europe since ww2. She made allies with all of Europe,peace between the countries there. There is safety in a group esp when one member of that group is very strong. It deters others from attacking the weaker members of the group.

[owbu]

He says alot. Some of it is hawkish, some of it is isolationist. Just like with everything else, it doesnt really matter to him what he says, as long as he says the same word 20 times in a row.
So ... he is a complete wildcard. He could either stop the trade deals and end all wars (which means the world should build him a giant thank you trumptower somewhere) or he could decide that he needs to nuke mexico, because they are bad people, and you need to target those peoples families.
I think, he is only saying the insane stuff, because he needs to appeal to racist dicks right now, and that he will actually be better for the world than Hillary (who is definetely an interventionist and has a similiar track reckord to Bush, when it comes to good decision making in foreign policy), but I am not sure. He might also sometimes play the nice guy and is actually the next Erdogan. And I am not sure if the world would survive an Erdogan in charge of the US military.

[Deleted]

America meddles because when the shit hits the fan its who the rest of the world calls on.

You people keep coming out with this bullshit. Read a history book. The US does fuck all for any one unless its big producers perceive a financial interest. As do most nations.

In the case of the UK we have intervened in multiple stupid fucking American wars at considerable expense and cost to our reputation globally, while the US has not intervened in a specific conflict of ours in any specific instance.

I'm not sure where this infantilist comic book nonsense comes from, but it completely at odds with the most cursory analysis of the subject.

[Independent voter]

In the case of the UK we have intervened in multiple stupid fucking American wars at considerable expense and cost to our reputation globally, while the US has not intervened in a specific conflict of ours in any specific instance.

Falklands? Mediating the Irish deal?

[Hooked]

They are all part of the same club including pope francis. The globalist tendrils are far reaching and very powerful.

[Deleted]

Falklands? Mediating the Irish deal?

The US wasn't involved in the Falklands. Many US citizens funded the IRA.

As I said, read a history book.

[Independent voter]

The US wasn't involved in the Falklands. Many US citizens funded the IRA.

As I said, read a history book.

New U.S. Documents Show Washington Sided with British in Early April 1982 While Publicly Declaring Neutrality
CIA reports Describe Logistical Support and Detailed Intelligence on Argentine Forces
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 374

Posted - April 1, 2012
Edited by Carlos Osorio, Sarah Christiano and Erin Maskell

With the collaboration of Anne Morel and Marcos Novaro

Washington, D.C., April 1, 2012 – The United States secretly supported the United Kingdom during the early days of the Falklands/Malvinas Island war of 1982, while publicly adopting a neutral stance and acting as a disinterested mediator in the conflict, according to recently declassified U.S. documents posted today by the National Security Archive.

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB374/

Mitchell in Ireland

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_J._Mitchell

[Masark]

America meddles because when the shit hits the fan its who the rest of the world calls on.

They get called on because they tend to be the ones throwing the shit at the fan.

[Deleted]

New U.S. Documents Show Washington Sided with British in Early April 1982 While Publicly Declaring Neutrality
CIA reports Describe Logistical Support and Detailed Intelligence on Argentine Forces
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 374

Posted - April 1, 2012
Edited by Carlos Osorio, Sarah Christiano and Erin Maskell

With the collaboration of Anne Morel and Marcos Novaro

Washington, D.C., April 1, 2012 – The United States secretly supported the United Kingdom during the early days of the Falklands/Malvinas Island war of 1982, while publicly adopting a neutral stance and acting as a disinterested mediator in the conflict, according to recently declassified U.S. documents posted today by the National Security Archive.

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB374/

Mitchell in Ireland

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_J._Mitchell

Why was it "secret"? A fascist dictatorship takes over a territory entirely against the wishes of the inhabitants. I can't imagine a more unambigous just cause for going to war. If it takes something like that to get you to people to provide lukewarm diplomatic support, especially when the British army effectively decided the issue on the ground anyway, you are no use to anybody.

What the UK did in Afghanistan and Iraq is actual support: troops on the ground, blood spilled, in wars which are morally ambigous by the most charitable assessment.

Senator Mitchell was an excellent mediator. But he was just that, a mediator. The US government wasn't taking sides in that conflict officially. However, it turned a blind eye to millions of dollars being sent through NORAID to fund terrorism. It provided a safe haven for IRA terrorists. For this reason many Brits, including conservatives still view the US with extreme suspicion: having a similar relationship to Irish terrorism as the Taleban or Pakistan has to al-quaeda.

We've done more than enough for you and received nothing in return. Until the US radically reforms its approach to foreign policy I don't want a penny wasted on another war carried out in the interests of its producers, xenophobes or religous maniacs.