this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2024
273 points (98.6% liked)

World News

34956 readers
466 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago (4 children)
[–] BombOmOm@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

The book is about the US backing off from protecting global trade and what happens afterword. Such is the core thing holding up our current globalized trading system.

It isn’t about everyone dying or some shit (“Doomerism”), it is about geopolitics.

[–] aew360@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You should read it. Pretty much no one understands how the current state of international affairs has been maintained by global trade. The U.S. Navy protects all global trade. Not just trade to and from the U.S., but obviously it’s not a popular domestic position and it doesn’t make much sense for the U.S. to continue anyway. There’s winners and losers, but mostly losers

[–] sturlabragason@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Sure, but some interesting observations. 😅

[–] capital@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

What parts did you find unconvincing?

You read it, right?

[–] Kolrami@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

They linked a Wikipedia article for a whole book. We can read the summary section, but presumably it would be better to have read the whole book.

Wouldn't a comment where they mention what applies in this specific situation make more sense than just a link for a book with a title that's meant to rile people up?

[–] capital@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Those that have read it would know there’s a whole section on the US’ protection of world trade and what could happen if it stopped.

Those that have read it would know exactly what it meant to link that book in a thread like this one.