- Registrado
- 13 de Dic, 2023
Just some counter-arguments:You bring up good points about Miller and Vance and it got me thinking. They’re currently doing everything to see chaos and unrest in the US to consolidate power. This is definitely in Miller’s playbook and the type of regime he sees as successful: keep the loots scared and confused and they’re easy to manage.
But they forget the most important thing in their world that also suffers under chaos: the market. The economy does not fare chaos well, but most especially the stock market. Scared, poor people don’t spend well.
So they’ve adopted a form of rule that is counterintuitive to their men who hold the purse strings. Which is why we have a moron bumbling into an invasion before he knows if it’ll even benefit anyone, getting rejected by every oil company. Winning?
You're correct that the two Trump administrations are/were looking to shake up existing political power and consolidate them in a way that worships him. But political power was already consolidated into whatever small club the Clintons, Bushes, Bidens and more belong to. Anyone who remembers Ron Paul's presidential run will remember him having organic and growing popularity only to get hard-snubbed by the press, for example. Trump's scheme is hardly anything new, it just focuses on him like a demagogue and has a militarist, populist, civic nationalist slant. Both still serve oil companies. It's the same game with more American flags and different locations.
And believe it or not chaos does make people participate more in markets. A stagnant stock market is not a healthy one, it's just a place where extremely rich people and boomers watch their wealth grow at a glacial yet predictable pace. If exciting things are happening (remember GME?) ordinary people will jump onboard and start investing what they can spare, which is more money in the stock market, which benefits the stock market.
