David Brook Predicts New World Order
-
Yup, important to question, but boy oh boy, I dont see the benefit of "p*ssing" off long term allies.
I hope I am wrong that nothing comes of it, but my optimistic is less than my pessimistic at this moment.
-
International relations are not human friendships and do not operate by the same rules, as useful as that notion is, sometimes, in tribal rhetoric. The value of predictability is certainly a thing though.
@Horace said in David Brook Predicts New World Order:
International relations are not human friendships and do not operate by the same rules,
Not in the traditional sense, but absolutely, there is country to country friendships will are crucial for international diplomacy.
-
@Horace said in David Brook Predicts New World Order:
International relations are not human friendships and do not operate by the same rules,
Not in the traditional sense, but absolutely, there is country to country friendships will are crucial for international diplomacy.
@taiwan_girl said in David Brook Predicts New World Order:
@Horace said in David Brook Predicts New World Order:
International relations are not human friendships and do not operate by the same rules,
Not in the traditional sense, but absolutely, there is country to country friendships will are crucial for international diplomacy.
I hesitate to disagree with an international woman of mystery, but I don't really know how true this is. I think any diplomat who depends on human friendships to do their jobs, is depending on an easily gameable thing. I would have thought that diplomats would soon discover what any American congressperson discovers, that you should check your friendships and personal loyalties at the door.
-
Mik and Horace, in my opionion, you are both right.
National interest is obviously number 1, but then can be tied to how well you work with country X, what has the past relationship been like, etc.
If you were a company and were looking to build a new airport. There are two companies bidding. Both have exactly the same price, schedule, and product. (I know, I know, things are never exactly the same for things like this, but this is hypothetic). One of the companies, you have had a good long standing relationship with, you know and like the bid manager, etc. The other company, you have no relationship with them.
Which one will you pick?
(Probably what you would do is write the bid document so that the friendly company will win. LOL)
-
Social relationships dominate corporations internally, and to a lesser extent will affect relationships across corporations. But those practical realities don't imply that they are for the best. They dominate internal corporate dynamics simply because everybody has to go to work every day, that's their life, and they want to spend their lives with people they like. But when it comes to relationships across corporations, and then another step up with relations across countries, the efficiency-polluting personal relationships really need to be minimized, and you can count on countries to hire, as diplomats, people who are highly skilled at seeming friendly and gracious, but who will engineer all social interactions to the favor of their country. Any rube diplomat who doesn't game everything that way will be a bad diplomat. There are plenty of humans to choose from who can keep strategy in mind, while seeming for all outward appearances to be super nice and amiable.
-
Using terms like friendship doesn’t translate well to countries.
But I think the underlying question is reasonable.
Are we friends with our countrymen? In what sense? Are we friends with our neighboring countries in a similar sense?
How do you weigh what’s good for you personally vs the country? How much of that same consideration should your neighbors get.
Less, but it’s not zero.
And if we say none, couldn’t the same argument be made for your own countrymen?
-
A lot of points in his opinion piece that hopefully will not come true.
But the article talks about my fears with what President Trump is doing.
Case in point:
As America betrays its friends, China will seek to make them.
@taiwan_girl said in David Brook Predicts New World Order:
A lot of points in his opinion piece that hopefully will not come true.
But the article talks about my fears with what President Trump is doing.
Case in point:
As America betrays its friends, China will seek to make them.
Sure, everyone knows that China is much more friendly and trustworthy. We'll just have to learn to live with that.
-
Using terms like friendship doesn’t translate well to countries.
But I think the underlying question is reasonable.
Are we friends with our countrymen? In what sense? Are we friends with our neighboring countries in a similar sense?
How do you weigh what’s good for you personally vs the country? How much of that same consideration should your neighbors get.
Less, but it’s not zero.
And if we say none, couldn’t the same argument be made for your own countrymen?
@xenon said in David Brook Predicts New World Order:
Using terms like friendship doesn’t translate well to countries.
But I think the underlying question is reasonable.
Are we friends with our countrymen? In what sense? Are we friends with our neighboring countries in a similar sense?
How do you weigh what’s good for you personally vs the country? How much of that same consideration should your neighbors get.
Less, but it’s not zero.
And if we say none, couldn’t the same argument be made for your own countrymen?
Start with a baseline that a prosperous country where the population's needs are met, is a peaceful country where you can have nice things, by and large. Same principle as using your property taxes to pay for schools, even if you don't have kids. That baseline goes a long way.
-
Very fair. But I’ve never met anyone, much less a country, that’s had their needs met.
Some eastern religions explicitly work on erasing desire/need because it can’t ever be met.
Anyways - that’s a digression. But even in a country we have to use coercion to get people to take care of others. We don’t do it because it’s in our individual interest - but rather in the interest of having a healthy overall society.
Having a healthy overall world community probably needs to be in that calculus somewhere
-
Very fair. But I’ve never met anyone, much less a country, that’s had their needs met.
Some eastern religions explicitly work on erasing desire/need because it can’t ever be met.
Anyways - that’s a digression. But even in a country we have to use coercion to get people to take care of others. We don’t do it because it’s in our individual interest - but rather in the interest of having a healthy overall society.
Having a healthy overall world community probably needs to be in that calculus somewhere
@xenon said in David Brook Predicts New World Order:
Very fair. But I’ve never met anyone, much less a country, that’s had their needs met.
Well you shouldn't take me literally and then not even apply the literal meaning accurately. I would guess everybody you've ever met has had their needs met, unless they were actively starving or dying of thirst, in which case, you should scold them for having made the poor life choices which caused them to starve. Then hand them some bootstraps, and tell them to get hauling. Yell at them if necessary. You will be doing them a favor, even if you have to yell pretty loud over the sound of them whining about "not being able to stand up because they are weak from hunger" blah blah blah.
-
@xenon said in David Brook Predicts New World Order:
Very fair. But I’ve never met anyone, much less a country, that’s had their needs met.
Well you shouldn't take me literally and then not even apply the literal meaning accurately. I would guess everybody you've ever met has had their needs met, unless they were actively starving or dying of thirst, in which case, you should scold them for having made the poor life choices which caused them to starve. Then hand them some bootstraps, and tell them to get hauling. Yell at them if necessary. You will be doing them a favor, even if you have to yell pretty loud over the sound of them whining about "not being able to stand up because they are weak from hunger" blah blah blah.
@Horace said in David Brook Predicts New World Order:
@xenon said in David Brook Predicts New World Order:
Very fair. But I’ve never met anyone, much less a country, that’s had their needs met.
Well you shouldn't take me literally and then not even apply the literal meaning accurately. I would guess everybody you've ever met has had their needs met, unless they were actively starving or dying of thirst, in which case, you should scold them for having made the poor life choices which caused them to starve. Then hand them some bootstraps, and tell them to get hauling. Yell at them if necessary. You will be doing them a favor, even if you have to yell pretty loud over the sound of them whining about "not being able to stand up because they are weak from hunger" blah blah blah.
I mean by that definition - Americans have their needs met and then some.
The people who can’t take care of themselves, on a subsistence level, typically have problems the government can’t solve.
Even if you argue that some don’t have their needs met (which again with snap, govt housing, etc. - they do). We are rich enough to cover any gap that would be real.
-
@Horace said in David Brook Predicts New World Order:
@xenon said in David Brook Predicts New World Order:
Very fair. But I’ve never met anyone, much less a country, that’s had their needs met.
Well you shouldn't take me literally and then not even apply the literal meaning accurately. I would guess everybody you've ever met has had their needs met, unless they were actively starving or dying of thirst, in which case, you should scold them for having made the poor life choices which caused them to starve. Then hand them some bootstraps, and tell them to get hauling. Yell at them if necessary. You will be doing them a favor, even if you have to yell pretty loud over the sound of them whining about "not being able to stand up because they are weak from hunger" blah blah blah.
I mean by that definition - Americans have their needs met and then some.
The people who can’t take care of themselves, on a subsistence level, typically have problems the government can’t solve.
Even if you argue that some don’t have their needs met (which again with snap, govt housing, etc. - they do). We are rich enough to cover any gap that would be real.
@xenon said in David Brook Predicts New World Order:
@Horace said in David Brook Predicts New World Order:
@xenon said in David Brook Predicts New World Order:
Very fair. But I’ve never met anyone, much less a country, that’s had their needs met.
Well you shouldn't take me literally and then not even apply the literal meaning accurately. I would guess everybody you've ever met has had their needs met, unless they were actively starving or dying of thirst, in which case, you should scold them for having made the poor life choices which caused them to starve. Then hand them some bootstraps, and tell them to get hauling. Yell at them if necessary. You will be doing them a favor, even if you have to yell pretty loud over the sound of them whining about "not being able to stand up because they are weak from hunger" blah blah blah.
I mean by that definition - Americans have their needs met and then some.
The people who can’t take care of themselves, on a subsistence level, typically have problems the government can’t solve.
Even if you argue that some don’t have their needs met (which again with snap, govt housing, etc. - they do). We are rich enough to cover any gap that would be real.
I suppose so. Principle is easier than policy. Especially when the greatest constructive and organizing force for humanity, capitalism, involves winners and losers.
-
NATO countries are having second thoughts about buying America’s F-35 as the ‘predictability of our allies’ is doubted amid Trump’s seismic shifts
America’s F-35 stealth fighter is seen by some allies as a potential vulnerability rather than a cutting-edge weapon that can boost warfighting capabilities.
In recent days, Canada and Portugal have expressed willingness to explore alternatives to the Lockheed Martin plane as President Donald Trump has sown doubt about the US commitment to the NATO alliance.
On Friday, Canadian Defense Minister Bill Blair said the country is actively looking at other fighter jets amid growing political momentum to scrap a $13 billion deal for 88 F-35s that was signed in 2023.
Canada has committed money for its first 16 planes, which are scheduled for delivery early next year. Blair indicated that after accepting that batch of F-35s, Canada could turn to European aircraft to replace its aging fleet of fighters.
