The US has never been richer, adjusted for inflation, both in aggregate and per person. [0]
The idea that there have been decades of reckless spending and the US is going broke I think is not at all a nuanced take.
Anecdotes about the inflation of prices of eggs (which is 0.05% of US economy) don't change the overall facts that are material.
I will grant you that debt servicing needs immediate attention. Blowing up 100 years of foreign policy has nothing to do with that, however.
The number of NATO members spending 2% or more on defense went from 3 to 23 in the past 10 years. Their spending almost doubled in the past 10 years, while the US only grew 15% (actually shrunk in PPP terms). [1]
The US has been successfully pressuring NATO allies to pick up the bill, without having to call Ukraine a dictator and cede Ukraine to Russia without US security guarantees, and promote politics of appeasement that will lead to China taking Taiwan which is the only material place that produces the future's most important geopolitical asset: chips.
The US looking to reduce debt also isn't compatible with raising tariffs on everyone including allies, reducing taxes and warding off cheap immigrant labour, it's the opposite. Trump seems to have 25% good ideas, 75% bad ideas, and 90% poor execution that causes a lot of collateral damage. Penny wise pound foolish comes to mind a lot when I look at his policy choices.
Averages hide extremes. In this case it hides how much poorer the poor got and richer the rich got. America is not "rich" in a way that benefits the middle class.
And to address that gap between the rich and poor, Trump is ... firing middle-class government employees, cutting taxes (which primarily favors the rich), and toying with cutting social programs?
"The number of NATO members spending 2% or more on defense went from 3 to 23 in the past 10 years"
Which is the reason that maybe Trump is not working for Putin? By scaring Europe into re-militarizing, that is bad for Russia.
Not just 2%, but what if this spurs Germany into "hey, lets ramp this Military up and take on Russia again". That isn't good for Russia.
And this Trump attack on Ukraine, will unite the Ukraine people.
The things Trump does backfires? Or is that the plan. He's getting a militarized Europe and a United Ukraine. If he wants the opposite, then this is really bad way of going about it.
EDIT: Just trying to find a silver lining. Maybe a wakeup call by a global all powerful tyrant will move the world toward some unity?
There is absolutely zero real life evidence that anyone can possibly point to that supports the Trump is secretly a genius and is playing 4D chess theory.
I think it’s pretty likely that he is smart enough to try and use “madman theory” to gain his advantage. Whether that plays out to be a good strategy in the long term remains to be seen. However, in the past it has worked to a degree when leaders have utilized it.
I didn't really mean he is doing it on-purpose, 4-D Chess style. Just a thought, he could be achieving the opposite of his desires, and by accident helping Europe?
If Trump does accidentally manage to unite Europe, have them end the Ukraine war, and all without US involvement and spending… he will of course immediately claim full credit.
how about a far target of doing anything possible against China? Abandoning EU (thus pushing them to ramp up) and seemingly siding with Russia if needed.
> By scaring Europe into re-militarizing, that is bad for Russia.
Any anti-Russian benefit that has is dwarfed by the pro-Russian benefit of having a wedge driven between the US and Europe, which is what is happening. Even a Europe that invests more heavily is defense is far less scary to Russia than the threat of US military power, especially in the short to medium term. The US has military capability that will be difficult for anyone to recreate, even advanced economies like those of Germany, simply because of scale and long experience.
The best outcome for the US/European alliance would be a more militarily capable Europe still strongly allied with the US. Maybe that was the 4D chess goal, but if so Trump appears to have way overshot it.
The problem I see is that while Europe is waking up to the fact that they need to invest more in defense, they haven't realized yet that they need to build a military that can actually project power if they want to replace/augment the US. That's a different beast. And you are right, no single country in Europe could do that, and it would indeed be very bad if they would try. What has to happen is that Europe, ideally including the UK, comes together to form such a military.
The idea that there have been decades of reckless spending and the US is going broke I think is not at all a nuanced take.
Anecdotes about the inflation of prices of eggs (which is 0.05% of US economy) don't change the overall facts that are material.
I will grant you that debt servicing needs immediate attention. Blowing up 100 years of foreign policy has nothing to do with that, however.
The number of NATO members spending 2% or more on defense went from 3 to 23 in the past 10 years. Their spending almost doubled in the past 10 years, while the US only grew 15% (actually shrunk in PPP terms). [1]
The US has been successfully pressuring NATO allies to pick up the bill, without having to call Ukraine a dictator and cede Ukraine to Russia without US security guarantees, and promote politics of appeasement that will lead to China taking Taiwan which is the only material place that produces the future's most important geopolitical asset: chips.
The US looking to reduce debt also isn't compatible with raising tariffs on everyone including allies, reducing taxes and warding off cheap immigrant labour, it's the opposite. Trump seems to have 25% good ideas, 75% bad ideas, and 90% poor execution that causes a lot of collateral damage. Penny wise pound foolish comes to mind a lot when I look at his policy choices.
[0] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD?locat... [1] https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pd...