USA Debt Hits $40 Trillion

[Ladle Ghoulash 54,595]

22 minutes ago, Creyk said:

I'm so confused didn't he fire all those federal workers and disband the board of education specially to save money and decrease these debts?

 

No, he did all of that because he works for private corporations that want to dismantle the federal regulatory apparatus lmao. Also he just started an insanely expensive war.

Edited 8 hours ago by Ladle Ghoulash

[River 127,942]

You're welcome, xoxo Israel 

[Ladle Ghoulash 54,595]

4 minutes ago, River said:

You're welcome, xoxo Israel 

*Stylor screams in the distance*

[Bronco 26,471]

3 minutes ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

*Stylor screams in the distance*

[River 127,942]

14 minutes ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

*Stylor screams in the distance*

[Economy 52,944]

6 hours ago, Emvee said:

Obama and Biden grew the debt because they had to deal with a mess a left by a Republican president. 
 

Trump and Bush grew the debt because they started wars and passed unnecessary tax cuts. 

I mean, my comment wasnt a disection on the reasons why, I was simply stating the trend has been for each president to accomulate more debt than the last for the past 2 decades

 

Regarding what ur saying, i dont entirely disagree. The Republicans have been worse. But if were gonna be completely 100% honest, Democrats were not exactly fighting this issue as urgently as necessairy. Its not popular to, so they dont. Taxes on the rich would have to go way higher, military spending cut and worse case scenario if that still wasnt enough, general spending cuts

 

The Republicans are worse sure I agree, but neither party is activily really fixing this

[Economy 52,944]

6 hours ago, Creyk said:

I'm so confused didn't he fire all those federal workers and disband the board of education specially to save money and decrease these debts?

 

Yeah, for every $1 in spending savings theres like $3 to $4 in tax cuts and defense pentagon budget increases

 

Guy isnt just incompetent, its like hes purposely going out of his way to ruin the Country

[Bronco 26,471]

2 minutes ago, Economy said:

Yeah, for every $1 in spending savings theres like $3 to $4 in tax cuts and defense pentagon budget increases

 

Guy isnt just incompetent, its like hes purposely going out of his way to ruin the Country

Plus he's spending around $1bn a day on the Iran war

[Economy 52,944]

2 minutes ago, Bronco said:

Plus he's spending around $1bn a day on the Iran war

I was kinda including that in the pentagon comment but yeah... stupidest war this century along with Russia-Ukraine

 

Its crazy that humanity seemed to learn after WWI and WWII how important diplomacy is to try and avoid war and for a few decades after that the rate of war and major conflicts seemed to reduce (tho never entirely) but now as a species with short term memory we all forgot that and have gone back to conflict after conflict. Gaaaaaaaah

[Bronco 26,471]

1 minute ago, Economy said:

I was kinda including that in the pentagon comment but yeah... stupidest war this century along with Russia-Ukraine

 

Its crazy that humanity seemed to learn after WWI and WWII how important diplomacy is to try and avoid war and for a few decades after that the rate of war and major conflicts seemed to reduce (tho never entirely) but now as a species with short term memory we all forgot that and have gone back to conflict after conflict. Gaaaaaaaah

I'd argue we never learned diplomacy is important. 
If the lessons of WW1 taught the victors anything, it's that diplomacy was the mistake that caused WW2. 

And so to solve WW2, they ensured it ended with the creation of the ultimate suicide pact weapon - the A bomb. 

Ever since then, the powerful nations have felt indestructible (from outside) because of mutually assured destruction. The only reason conflicts are increasing now is because of resource inbalaces. 

[Economy 52,944]

Just now, Bronco said:

I'd argue we never learned diplomacy is important. 
If the lessons of WW1 taught the victors anything, it's that diplomacy was the mistake that caused WW2. 

And so to solve WW2, they ensured it ended with the creation of the ultimate suicide pact weapon - the A bomb. 

Ever since then, the powerful nations have felt indestructible (from outside) because of mutually assured destruction. The only reason conflicts are increasing now is because of resource inbalaces. 

Ukraine and Iran war dont feel very resource driven to me. Not a geopolitical expert but invading Ukraime felt more expansionist and anti Nato than anything

 

Attacking Iran... dont see how it relates to resources either. Private companies are not gonna set up drilling in Iran... there was also no oil shortage before war. Adjusting for inflation long term oil and gas was actually cheap and not scarse despite peoples perception of the contrary (probably cuz cost of living went up so much in everything else that even the things that didnt go up feel unaffordable as well)

[Bronco 26,471]

23 minutes ago, Economy said:

Ukraine and Iran war dont feel very resource driven to me. Not a geopolitical expert but invading Ukraime felt more expansionist and anti Nato than anything

Ukraine's sitting on one of the largest collections of natural minerals vital to the tech industry in Europe, the stockpile is estimated at being worth $10 to 26 trillion - $15 trillion being the official number estimate. And it's also heavily concentrated on the Russian border along with oil/coal/gas stores.

Russia's incredibly weak on this front compared to the US & China so needed something to help it break into it. It's also why both Russia & the US have been so hawkish over the artic circle as it thaws.

Iran was absolutely a miscalculation, but again very good region to exploit for natural minerals & metals vital to the tech industry with estimates putting it between $27.3 to $27.5 trillion in resource value. Around 5% of the global copper reserves, top holder of Zinc and also multi-billion reserves of iron and deposits of sulfide gold. 

Resource monopolisation is the best angle to understand GOP Foreign Policy Hawks under Trump 2. They're incredibly amateur and some of their moves are absolutely miscalculations but when you line up the actions they've taken in Venezuela/Iran/the resource deal with Ukraine in defence talks/Greenland bravado with the resource demands of the American industry. It's a near perfect circle.

[Economy 52,944]

16 minutes ago, Bronco said:

Ukraine's sitting on one of the largest collections of natural minerals vital to the tech industry in Europe, the stockpile is estimated at being worth $10 to 26 trillion - $15 trillion being the official number estimate. And it's also heavily concentrated on the Russian border along with oil/coal/gas stores.

Russia's incredibly weak on this front compared to the US & China so needed something to help it break into it. It's also why both Russia & the US have been so hawkish over the artic circle as it thaws.

Iran was absolutely a miscalculation, but again very good region to exploit for natural minerals & metals vital to the tech industry with estimates putting it between $27.3 to $27.5 trillion in resource value. Around 5% of the global copper reserves, top holder of Zinc and also multi-billion reserves of iron and deposits of sulfide gold. 

Resource monopolisation is the best angle to understand GOP Foreign Policy Hawks under Trump 2. They're incredibly amateur and some of their moves are absolutely miscalculations but when you line up the actions they've taken in Venezuela/Iran/the resource deal with Ukraine in defence talks/Greenland bravado with the resource demands of the American industry. It's a near perfect circle.

I guess thats if we assume the presense of those minerals was the reason Russia invaded. I think its hard to prove either way. We do know Putin didnt like the idea of Ukraine potentially getting more involved with Nato and some suggest he may have wishes of soke extent getting back lost territory from Soviet Union. Ukraine may happen to have a lot of resources but how do we know that was really the driving force?

 

As for Iran, yeah if it was resource driven it would be a miscalculation to say the least. Im still trying to understand even from a resource perspective how the US could possibly benefit from all of this. Its not like with these dynamics and their regime US companies are gonna be drilling on Iran soil, its just not gonna happen - and again, for a resource that before that war was not even in scarcity

 

As for Venezuela I agree, that one seems to be a lot easier to directly link to resources. US companines already had a presense there, US refineries already are built to process that k8nd of crude which for the most part Canada has almost exclusively filled the gap of falling Venezuela production. US companies expanding on Venezuela soil is also more realistic than in closed off Middle Eastern Nations

[Bronco 26,471]

2 minutes ago, Economy said:

As for Iran, yeah if it was resource driven it would be a miscalculation to say the least. Im still trying to understand even from a resource perspective how the US could possibly benefit from all of this. Its not like with these dynamics and their regime US companies are gonna be drilling on Iran soil, its just not gonna happen - and again, for a resource that before that war was not even in scarcity

I mean, the US excluded intelligence briefings and genuinely believed that Iran would collapse and surrender within seconds to them. Hence why I said the hawks aren't the brightest. 

And one specific example of the value of Iran to the US - Copper is one of the biggest minerals required by the AI boom as part of Data Centre cooling systems. 
It can average 16 years to go from deposit discovery to production for mining projects. The estimated demand to 2035 for copper in AI infrastructure is around 83% of the total for all mineral demands in that period. The IEA expects copper demand to rise by 7 million tonnes by 2040. And is currently estimating at 25% supply deficit just based on existing infrastructure plans by 2035.
Iran sits on one of the world's largest stores of it. 
If America falls behind in the AI infrastructure race, it will collapse as a global power and economic power. 

I'd wager the US gov got so sloppy with the Iran war precisely because it's biggest funders are now silicon valley tycoons who need to ensure their survival. 

Fundamentally, Iran needed to be brought out of the cold and back into the global economy to combat the predicted supply deficit. And the US wasn't prepared to do that while the existing regime led Iran, the US has obviously though failed to achieve any of it's objectives and has put their AI industry at increased risk of supply chain collapse (especially as China already has a monopoly on a number of key resources). 

[Economy 52,944]

49 minutes ago, Bronco said:

I mean, the US excluded intelligence briefings and genuinely believed that Iran would collapse and surrender within seconds to them. Hence why I said the hawks aren't the brightest. 

And one specific example of the value of Iran to the US - Copper is one of the biggest minerals required by the AI boom as part of Data Centre cooling systems. 
It can average 16 years to go from deposit discovery to production for mining projects. The estimated demand to 2035 for copper in AI infrastructure is around 83% of the total for all mineral demands in that period. The IEA expects copper demand to rise by 7 million tonnes by 2040. And is currently estimating at 25% supply deficit just based on existing infrastructure plans by 2035.
Iran sits on one of the world's largest stores of it. 
If America falls behind in the AI infrastructure race, it will collapse as a global power and economic power. 

I'd wager the US gov got so sloppy with the Iran war precisely because it's biggest funders are now silicon valley tycoons who need to ensure their survival. 

Fundamentally, Iran needed to be brought out of the cold and back into the global economy to combat the predicted supply deficit. And the US wasn't prepared to do that while the existing regime led Iran, the US has obviously though failed to achieve any of it's objectives and has put their AI industry at increased risk of supply chain collapse (especially as China already has a monopoly on a number of key resources). 

Its a very interesting strategy Americans use sometimes

 

Alieanate allies that are saturated with resources (ex: Canada, Northern Europe)... then spend a fortune on complicated operations to maybe unlock some supply elsewhere