Donald I, emperor of the world.

[Pinno718]

To me, the interesting point is WHY did the USA gain ascendancy?

Vast resources and slavery. Geographically the US is reasonably isolated whilst Europe spent years waging war.*
The two World wars decimated Europe whereas the US stayed relatively intact and whilst we were rebuilding, the US were building - dams, highways and other infrastructure. WW2 spelled the end of the British Empire. The mass exodus of people after WW2 didn't really stop until well after the Hungarian revolution - an example of the upheaval caused by the war. The combined USSR lost 27m people (13.7%) of it's population. The US: only 0.32%.

*The 19th century in Europe was filled with significant conflicts, dominated early on by the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815) and their aftermath, leading to numerous independence movements like the Greek War of Independence (1821–1832) and Polish Uprisings, followed by major unification wars for Italy and Germany, culminating in the Crimean War, Austro-Prussian War, and Franco-Prussian War, alongside ongoing struggles for empire and independence like the Russo-Turkish Wars.

 

[CXRAndy]

Rumours firming up


View: https://x.com/i/status/2008147585618567499

If true- independent journalist brings down governor with 30 min video and spread sheet

 

[Rusty Nails]

Yes, I know that is/was the outcome, but

- why did the USA gain the ability to make and sell all this stuff, when the others did not, given that approximately 400-500 years earlier, they all started more or less at the same time"level"?

- why were the South American Countries inclined to "self-inflict", while the USA did not (until now arguably)

42.

 

[CXRAndy]

View: https://x.com/i/status/2008121282458472747

 

[Ian H]

OK, I can buy that. Why did none of the South American Countries enjoy "stability" (I get that in the more recent times, USA may have been a destabilising influence, but, the USA did not start off as a "super power".

The Monroe Doctrine was published in 1823.

 

[Dorset Boy]

I suspect geography played a big part - the US east of the Rockies is fairly flat isn't it? Prairies easy to farm, easy terrain to build railroads to transfer goods and natural resources. Also US being a lot closer to Europe than south America must have helped with migration there.

 

[Blazing Saddles]

It’s interesting that Trump seems happy to prop up the Argentinian government because Milei is a disciple. In every other respect, they remain poles apart. ( although steps are currently being taken to rectify at least part of the problem.)
For many years, Argentina has been flooded by immigrants from the rest of South America. The reason? Free healthcare and free education, all the way up to university: not just for Argentinians, but for anyone.
The cost has been staggering and a drain on the economy.
In Buenos Aires, the wealthiest people live on one side of the railway tracks, on the other, there’s a huge shantytown full of the poorest immigrants.

It seems contradictory to me that Trump is prepared to hand out billions to a country that will undoubtedly use at least some the money to support the part of society he hates so much.

 

[swee'pea99]

OK, I can buy that. Why did none of the South American Countries enjoy "stability" (I get that in the more recent times, USA may have been a destabilising influence, but, the USA did not start off as a "super power".

We forget. Pre-war, the US was strongly isolationist. There was great resistance to their involement on WW1, and once The War to End All Wars was ended, they wanted out. People had gone there not least to escape nonsense like monarchs and wars. Hence this, c 1943:

 

[Psamathe]

Amazed Trümp cannot see the hypocracy of what he's doing. Ousting a leader because of a flawed election but reality is however you view the Venezuelan election, however rigged it was, Maduro got a lot more votes than Trump yet Trump now claims to be running the country (despite not getting a single vote in the Venezuelan leadership election). And Trump claims he's doing itr fore "democracy".

 

[Beebo]

Amazed Trümp cannot see the hypocracy of what he's doing.

None of it makes any sense on the basis of his justification.
Replacing a corrupt president with the deputy from the same party makes no democratic sense.
Justifications based on drug dealing make no sense after he pardoned the President of Honduras who was convicted of drug dealing in the US courts.

He just wants a diversion from trouble at home and wants the oil. It’s really that blatant.

 

[BoldonLad]

South American politics are not my forte but they always seem to be in a state of disarray. As I said, self inflicted.
The elephant in the room for "super power" is nuclear weapons.

the USA / South America divide has been in place long before Nuclear Weapons

 

[briantrumpet]

None of it makes any sense on the basis of his justification.
Replacing a corrupt president with the deputy from the same party makes no democratic sense.
Justifications based on drug dealing make no sense after he pardoned the President of Honduras who was convicted of drug dealing in the US courts.

He just wants a diversion from trouble at home and wants the oil. It’s really that blatant.

Nothing's going to make 'normal' sense with Trump. His only motivations are malignant narcissism (boosting his own self image by hurting others), insatiable personal greed (regardless of legal niceties), and that other people know how to pull his strings to make stuff happen that they want to happen.

What Trump says has only a passing acquaintance with consistency or logic, but that suits all his string-pullers nicely, as rather than normal people being able to pin anything on him, they spend most of the time going "WTF?" at the non-stop serial demented what-the-fuckery.

 

[Pblakeney]

the USA / South America divide has been in place long before Nuclear Weapons

The Panama Canal?
Yeah but nuclear weapons tie in nicely with the US growth. Remember where they were in the early 30s.

 

[BoldonLad]

Vast resources and slavery. Geographically the US is reasonably isolated whilst Europe spent years waging war.*
The two World wars decimated Europe whereas the US stayed relatively intact and whilst we were rebuilding, the US were building - dams, highways and other infrastructure. WW2 spelled the end of the British Empire. The mass exodus of people after WW2 didn't really stop until well after the Hungarian revolution - an example of the upheaval caused by the war. The combined USSR lost 27m people (13.7%) of it's population. The US: only 0.32%.

*The 19th century in Europe was filled with significant conflicts, dominated early on by the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815) and their aftermath, leading to numerous independence movements like the Greek War of Independence (1821–1832) and Polish Uprisings, followed by major unification wars for Italy and Germany, culminating in the Crimean War, Austro-Prussian War, and Franco-Prussian War, alongside ongoing struggles for empire and independence like the Russo-Turkish Wars.

That is an explanation for why USA got ascendancy over Europe, the question was, why did the USA get ascendancy over every Country in South America

 

[Pblakeney]

That is an explanation for why USA got ascendancy over Europe, the question was, why did the USA get ascendancy over every Country in South America

The US got ascendancy over everyone.
That's like asking why they got ascendancy over Australia.