America got to design the western world order after WWII, but Europe was happy to give it the reins at the time. America setting the agenda was realistically the only way to get all these countries to agree.
The whole "American Imperialism" narrative only came about much later. In reality Europe got a great deal, most countries got to set their own agenda, and the USSR was contained.
In it's original form, the Monroe Doctrine was anti-imperial. It's tone changed during America's brief flirtation with empire at the turn of the century.
But the idea of a modern American Empire (Post-WW2) defined by Bretton Woods and NATO only makes sense of one doesn't have perspective on what empires were like before.
The world order for after WW2 was designed before the war was over. Invasion plans were partially argued over based on what different countries wanted to ensure they controlled.
For example, Churchill wanted to go through the Baltic instead of Normandy so he could be sure Britain still controlled Greece
In that light, it's going to be doubly-funny if Trump actually goes through with his threat to withdraw from NATO, at which point the A in NATO will stand for... Canada?
Is this one of those things where Americans ascribe all of the outrageously massive military machine of the US -- the vast majority of which has nothing to do with Europe (see: Being a subjugate vassal state of Israel, which almost always works against NATO goals, and in fact has just yields an unending stream of migrants towards Europe) -- and pretends it's all for Europe? In modern history the US has been the world's number one antagonist, and honestly NATO has been used as a backstop for US imperialism (precisely what the diddler in chief is trying to do this time too).
Right now the US should get kicked out of NATO. Every American base in Europe should be shuttered. Europe can nuke up -- precisely what America tried to avoid -- and we can enjoy the new nuclear powers of Germany, Poland, Canada, etc. Japan and South Korea might want to build some warheads too.
And hey look, the grifter halfwit wants to increase the military budget $500B and pull out of NATO. Almost like the trillion dollar budget isn't the grand act of benevolence very ill-informed, uneducated, foolish Americans delude themselves into believing.
Maybe? Israel has wanted us to go to war in Iran since Reagan. They finally got a president stupid enough (or with sufficient leverage over) to do it. But I wouldn't say from the US's side that this has been in the works for decades.
We are all being investigated by the Feds 24/7 — that's what dragnet surveillance is: indiscriminate investigation at scale to be used retroactively.
"Don't do anything bad and nothing will happen" is frankly asinine to me, personally. That same logic could extend to stop-and-frisk or random door-to-door visits to check for citizenship.
Never trust news about the DPRK from South Korean spy agencies. It's only a matter of months before it's proven to be nonsense. They're the ones always saying crap like "North Koreans push their trains by hand" or "Kim Jong Un claims to have invented the hamburger." Only the most brainwashed westerners buy it, but it's enough to keep the DPRK hate at a simmer.
Interesting that the author doesn't mention a reduction in working hours as a solution because I see that as THE solution. Federally mandate an 18 hour work week and job demand will soar. It's just as fanciful a thought as his other suggestions given how little power we have over the federal government to exercise our will.
Our entire economic system is built around ensuring we have scarcities of necessities (housing, mostly) so workers need to outcompete their peers to have access to said necessities. This results in reduced work weeks being a non starters as those who would like to avail of them are outbid by those who forego them.
But I'm not sure that 40hrs is the sweet spot. Other countries have chosen differently (with comparisons difficult to draw).
There are several competing influences here: inflation, AI productivity gains (TBD but nonzero), existing legislation around health insurance obligations, social/economic inertia, etc. And definitely others I'm not smart enough to think of!
It'd be interesting, if it was possible, to ramp down the 40hrs by an hour or two every year, keeping other components (esp healthcare) in step, to see where the inflection point is. I feel confident that we could get down to 32hrs without major negative drama. I agree that 18hrs (suggested elsewhere) would be violent.
I think a lot of people would love to live frugally and work less but it’s hard to pull off. Wage arbitrage in low CoL locations works with remote work but that’s been drying up. And of course access to health care and good education is an issue if you require either.
Yeah that’s interesting. Imagine what could happen if AI allowed us to work fewer hours and in exchange there was a program to enable people to pursue volunteer programs in their communities
Some “it takes a village” type of mentoring for children. Or programs to spend time with the elderly. Get outside and get involved in public works projects like repairing parks and waterways.
Total fantasy, for sure, but that’s what revolutionary new tech like AI could actually benefit society by letting humans be more human.
Wages didn't drop when going from the 12 to 10 to 8 hour working day. With adequate political power wielded by labor – hypothetical in the context of the article – there's no reason to suspect that wages would go down with further reductions in the working day.
Writing should be for _you_ not for others. If it's not, then you won't be able to maintain it anyway. IMO yes it's still worth it if only to synthesize new thoughts, show potential employers you _think_, and to maintain a journal-like catalog of your past mindsets.
Subjective and wishy-washy framing. Sure, there's a "human culture" in that we all eat, sleep, etc. but it all depends on how you want to draw boundaries or frame the question of what culture _is_.
reply