Replies

[Given “Biden said there will be a ‘new world order’ that must be led by the United States,” Are you siding with Biden in this? Or arguing that “the free money era” is not over?]

The “new world order” is a phrase that has been around since Woodrow Wilson came up with it a century ago. He was referring to a need to prevent border changes by force, in contradiction to the very basis of the founding of the republic, of course. A cynical interpretation was that we’d pocket our wins, while everyone else would have to deal with the borders as they were however disadvantageous. In that respect, I’m perfectly fine with the new world order. Putin obviously is not, despite Russia being almost as big territorially-speaking, as the members of NATO combined.

The writer believes that the US forces the world to use the dollar by pointing a gun at their heads, in the form of the US military. This, in his view, is why the US is a wealthy country - the fact that other countries use the dollar. His take is that without military coercion, the dollar would be toilet paper. That was basically the Soviet, and now the Russian view about the dollar and the US economy - that it is toxic waste propped up by American military power.

Thank you for your reply. The article does not address all that you address, but then your reply also does not address related issues.

Given a massively growing US national debt -- currently tipping the scales at more than $3,300,000,000,000 -- any notion that the US is a "wealthy" country is amusing.

https://usdebtclock.org/

Given that in 2000 the debt stood at about $5 trillion by various sources, the "growth" -- a laughable term when discussing liabilities -- of more than six times is one the THE issues, as I consider things.

As to "new world order," the point is that Biden stated the US should run it.

Your history of terminology did not answer my query to you. Certainly the rampant inflation, which seems best explained by the Fed and ECB pursuing economic foolishness, shows itself. The article's title argues "the party's over." Are you saying it is not? Or that this view is "literally regurgitating Soviet propaganda?"