> Who is ranting about the free market. Republicans?
The US, the UK, all its satellites. It was 40 years of 'free trade and free market for all' cacophony. Everyone were either persuaded to it, or were coup'ed or bombed into doing it.
But now that the US is losing the competition, voila, suddenly free market is not cool anymore.
But its ok - the US can bring back protectionism and mercantilism under the excuse 'national security'. No one will bat an eye in Angloamerica.
> - The comment implies that one side is morally right and the other isn't.
The comment does not imply that. It outright says that. The US has been pushing 'free market' down everyone's throats. Now that it is losing the competition, its literally eating its own words. That's morally wrong.
> This comment is boiling the situation down and decades of (complex) context
There is no complex context in this. The US has always employed double-speak. It was 'free market for me, not for thee'. Even the closest allies were subjected to tariffs and quotas in order to be able to export anything to the US even at the heyday of 'free market'. So it was doublespeak from the start.
Today, we just see the dropping of the public facade of something that the US was always doing. Japanese would know - they got the Plaza Accords. China is bad, because it did not even entertain signing any such sociopathic document.
>> Who is ranting about the free market. Republicans?
> The US, the UK, all its satellites. It was 40 years of 'free trade and free market for all' cacophony. Everyone were either persuaded to it, or were coup'ed or bombed into doing it.
I'm not sure why you are cherry picking my argument. This too feels like bait. You're painting with a really broad brush, putting things into neat aggregated boxes, and ignoring the difference between history and current days. I also don't think one country doing wrong in the past (or even currently) justifies another country doing wrong.
Can we just all agree that if something is wrong that it doesn't matter who does it? I've assumed this is such a non-controversial statement that it need not be said, but it appears I am wrong.
> I'm not sure why you are cherry picking my argument. This too feels like bait
It likely feels so because especially the people who live in the US have internalized all the propaganda. You are born into the 'free market' propaganda, and you never notice that it exists. Hence you don't notice any stark difference.
But overseas, the 'free market' propaganda was an immutable cacophony that dominated the privately owned press for ~40 years now. All the neoliberal reforms that were pushed on our countries were pushed by being backed and rationalized on that propaganda.
And now all the principles that were sold to us are being invalidated, being proven to be lies from the start.
> Can we just all agree that if something is wrong that it doesn't matter who does it?
Really, we cannot - there is one country that pushed all of this onto ENTIRE world. Forcing them to adopt its false religion and to privatize, literally sell out everything in every country to corporate profit. We got coups, regime changes, invasions, bombins to make it happen. The US did it. This is still going on. It hasnt gone anywhere. Even as the US itself closing its economy to everyone, its still forcing others to open up its economy.
Calling this out is long overdue. And that is something everyone including you, should do. Because the establishment that is responsible with this has no qualms in destroying its own for profit like it destroyed everyone else. And it is already doing that.
The US, the UK, all its satellites. It was 40 years of 'free trade and free market for all' cacophony. Everyone were either persuaded to it, or were coup'ed or bombed into doing it.
But now that the US is losing the competition, voila, suddenly free market is not cool anymore.
But its ok - the US can bring back protectionism and mercantilism under the excuse 'national security'. No one will bat an eye in Angloamerica.
> - The comment implies that one side is morally right and the other isn't.
The comment does not imply that. It outright says that. The US has been pushing 'free market' down everyone's throats. Now that it is losing the competition, its literally eating its own words. That's morally wrong.
> This comment is boiling the situation down and decades of (complex) context
There is no complex context in this. The US has always employed double-speak. It was 'free market for me, not for thee'. Even the closest allies were subjected to tariffs and quotas in order to be able to export anything to the US even at the heyday of 'free market'. So it was doublespeak from the start.
Today, we just see the dropping of the public facade of something that the US was always doing. Japanese would know - they got the Plaza Accords. China is bad, because it did not even entertain signing any such sociopathic document.