I can’t speak for all countries but of the people assuming Europe will be fine, most seem to be rifht wing voters. It’s a good thing not everyone is in panic mode, but I agree people should be more aware of the current direction the world is heading in but there are also a lot of people who actually like this direction.
We could also have given Ukraine so much they won the war 2 years ago, problem is we also want healthcare, education and decent pensions. I mean it’s good the German army feels we should help Ukraine win the war but let’s not act as if this is a simple feat that doesn’t require a lot of money. Without free American weapons it will be a lot harder to defend ourselves against Putins warmongering.
He’s proven that alright
I don’t disagree with your point, but except for electronics, and Italian marble America can make a lot of the materials themselves. The biggest problem is in many cases the price of labour in the US. And for complex things like cars you can’t even move the entire supply chain even if you wanted to.
There was this guy who had a theory that there was nobody on earth who could make a microwave oven, turns out he was right: there are people who can know how to make a certain part of it and other people who knew about it’s assembly nobody can create one start to finish. So imagine with more complex machines how difficult it’d be to bring all those skills and knowledge ‘home’ to America.
it’s almost like Trump doesn’t know what he’s doing damage he’s doing while stealing money or something*
What a nice hat you got there
Demand it with more authority.
You forgot the most frequently asked question:
No.
It is true it isn’t a problem for the rest of eternity, but this small time frame is indeed relatively as in the people alive at that time will have to go through the consequences for at least a decade probably longer. You can spread that out over a longer period of time with all kinds of economic tools but you can’t erase it entirely is my original point.
In a perfect world you can do both because a society has a very wide range of sources of income, but in the end it actually is a zero sum game.
Ok you can, but you have to pay for it. Were talking about society as a while. In a fair world if the people collectively borrow money, the next generation will have to foot the bill.
Yes, less young folk is lower cost. But more old people is higher cost. So the cost of supporting old folk is higher per young person. Even in a fair world, an aging population is a borden tot the young people. I’m not saying we shouldn’t support the old folk, I’m saying there is no magic fix you can achieve by changing how we spend money.
You can’t just borrow or create money to fund things that are not profitable. Not saying infinite population growth is desirable but spending the large amount of resources on old folk does mean not spending it on the young folk = less money to education, health care and infrastructure. It’s not fair to reduce real world problems to ‘you just need to spend your money wiser’
Edit: just to clarify the comment I made above, it doesn’t say we shouldn’t care for retirerees, it is saying you can’t keep the price we pay for supporting them the same if the size of the group if old people rises and the group of people who work to pay for it shrinks. An aging population is a burden to any population in any financial system just like a growing population is a boon. Again, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t care for old people.
I don’t think they’d give him asylum from the goodness of their heart but this man has a lot to offer as long as he’s an enemy of the US government.