We used to do imperialism.

We still do, but we used to, too.

Proletarian unrest in the Republic of Samsung.

It’s a red herring to blame the electorate because the US is and always has been a bourgeois democracy, otherwise known as an oligarchy. Our votes barely move the needle by design. Previously:

It’s not wrong to say regulatory capture is a problem, it just doesn’t go far enough. The US government was never not captured by the bourgeoisie, because the US was born of a bourgeois revolution[1]. The wealthy, white, male, land-owning, largely slave-owning Founding Fathers constructed a bourgeois state with “checks and balances” against the “tyranny of the majority”. It was never meant to represent the majority—the working class—and it never has, despite eventually allowing women and non-whites (at least those not disenfranchised by the carceral system) to vote. BBC: [Princeton & Northwestern] Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy

The game is rigged. The election cycle’s pomp and circumstance is to divert your energy and attention from the fact that it’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.

Mostly no. That’s more Hollywood fantasy than real life.

Generative slop for hasbara.

Reporter: [REDACTED]
Reason: Breaks rule 1

Reporter, the first rule of Lemmy is you don’t make false reports against site admins’ posts.

BlueAnoners are as credulous as Trumpers when it comes to US imperialism, which is a bipartisan project.

Yes. This is covered in one of the YouTube videos I posted in this thread yesterday.

My body is ready for 1.0.

“Coming into power” is putting the cart before the horse. The odds of regime change don’t look good, and what would replace it hasn’t been decided. I doubt “crown prince” Reza Pahlavi is still a serious contender.

I pointed out that you couldn’t pretend defending the working in class when denying its agency.

There’s no evidence of us denying the agency of the working class, but Western media have groomed you to believe it. Previously:

Citations Needed podcast: US Meddling, the Limits of ‘Agency’ Discourse and How Media Chooses Which ‘Voices’ To Center

We discuss the uses and misuses of liberal standpoint theory to promote US meddling, sanctions, and bombing. With guest Vincent Bevins.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony
• https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schwartz-october-7/
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War#Weapons_of_mass_destruction
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Libyan_rape_allegations
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeonmi_Park

But you understand that everything you linked are examples of why a govt can’t actually print infinitely

We already agreed on why governments don’t print infinite money.

and can’t just pay interest to rich people

We know it can because we know it does. The wealthy buy US Treasuries for risk-free returns on investment.

Also it’s a red flag to me that all of your sources are youtube videos.

The reason I link to YouTube videos is because most people don’t read. They’re not going to read Karl Marx or Michael Hudson.

You’re still mistaking a state with monetary sovereignty for a business. It’s nothing like a business or a household or even a province or municipality. Money works completely differently at this level. Previously:

What if I told you that our federal taxes don’t go toward food stamps at all, and in fact pay for nothing?

• The United States can always pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that.
  — Former Fed. Res. Chair. Alan Greenspan
• Why The Government Has Infinite Money
• What Caused Hyperinflation In Weimar, Zimbabwe And Venezuela?

TBF most of us used to be liberals, and we have no more wits now than we did then.

But also a government can’t print “unlimited currency”. Eventually it would be worthless.

Governments can do it, but you’ve explained why they don’t do it.

They are effectively only permitted to print currency proportional to what their creditors allow.

A government with fiat monetary sovereignty has no need to borrow its own money, because it already can create as much as it pleases. The purpose of government securities is not to fund spending but to give the rich a safe place to park their capital with interest.

deleted by creator

I expect though that the future will see private currencies backed by the-entities-formerly-known-as-corporations.

Snow Crash becomes truer by the year.

Yes.

Anyone can create their own money. Consider Bitcoin. The hard part is getting people to use it.

Corporations can print corporate shares, though the more shares they print, the less each share is worth. You can’t buy a pack of gum with corporate shares, though, so I wouldn’t call it money or currency.

Private banks can print money, but not an an unlimited amount. They can only print as much as the government allows, and it can only be created as the principal of a loan, and the money is destroyed as the borrower pays down the principal.