US agencies might not have much reason, but foreign ones on the other hand definitely do have plenty of reasons.

I don’t think they’d give him asylum from the goodness of their heart but this man has a lot to offer as long as he’s an enemy of the US government.

He’s proven that alright

I don’t disagree with your point, but except for electronics, and Italian marble America can make a lot of the materials themselves. The biggest problem is in many cases the price of labour in the US. And for complex things like cars you can’t even move the entire supply chain even if you wanted to.

There was this guy who had a theory that there was nobody on earth who could make a microwave oven, turns out he was right: there are people who can know how to make a certain part of it and other people who knew about it’s assembly nobody can create one start to finish. So imagine with more complex machines how difficult it’d be to bring all those skills and knowledge ‘home’ to America.

it’s almost like Trump doesn’t know what he’s doing damage he’s doing while stealing money or something*

I totally agree with you, but that is often not how reality works. For example Norway when they found oil they put (most of) the income from that in a fund and now only use the interest they earn so it is like an infinite source of income. The Netherlands on the other hand invested their money in infrastructure, social subsidies and other stuff that was useful to the people alive when the money was flowing. Now I don’t want to say one of those choices was the better choice, because that is actually not my point. Because either you save up money when the population is growing (meaning people in that time frame have less benefits), or you spend your money and you have a deficit later on. In either case a group ‘misses out’. The same here, because the population is getting older and less people remain to pay the bill, the working people have less money left. In a perfect scenario when this money was saved up earlier, that money wouldn’t have been spent before. Either way, and I agree the society should take care of it self by organising an economy that benefits the society, you end up in a situation were the expenses have to be paid. The right argument is on whether it is worth spending the money (which I think it is), but the argument made is that it only is a problem for capitalists /in a capitalist society and that is just not true. Also communists or for example hunter gatherer societies would face the problem of increased costs of supporting a part of the population that is to sick and old do work.

Sorry long ramble, but it being true that it’s not a problem when you zoom out enough doesn’t mean it’s true that it’s not a problem for the individuals alive during that time frame.

It is true it isn’t a problem for the rest of eternity, but this small time frame is indeed relatively as in the people alive at that time will have to go through the consequences for at least a decade probably longer. You can spread that out over a longer period of time with all kinds of economic tools but you can’t erase it entirely is my original point.

In a perfect world you can do both because a society has a very wide range of sources of income, but in the end it actually is a zero sum game.

Ok you can, but you have to pay for it. Were talking about society as a while. In a fair world if the people collectively borrow money, the next generation will have to foot the bill.

Yes, less young folk is lower cost. But more old people is higher cost. So the cost of supporting old folk is higher per young person. Even in a fair world, an aging population is a borden tot the young people. I’m not saying we shouldn’t support the old folk, I’m saying there is no magic fix you can achieve by changing how we spend money.

I’m not against, but it won’t change the facts that every expense can only be made once.

You can’t just borrow or create money to fund things that are not profitable. Not saying infinite population growth is desirable but spending the large amount of resources on old folk does mean not spending it on the young folk = less money to education, health care and infrastructure. It’s not fair to reduce real world problems to ‘you just need to spend your money wiser’

Edit: just to clarify the comment I made above, it doesn’t say we shouldn’t care for retirerees, it is saying you can’t keep the price we pay for supporting them the same if the size of the group if old people rises and the group of people who work to pay for it shrinks. An aging population is a burden to any population in any financial system just like a growing population is a boon. Again, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t care for old people.

Those two are basically the same now

It’s actually just N+ now

Is there an explanation for how this keeps happening? As far as I know, this wasn’t a regular thing up until a few weeks ago

It was in the name of the party, north-korea’s official name is Democratic People’s Republic of Korea it happens more often that countries and parties choose a name that’s not representative for what they really are

Yes is the article written in present day, but I’m saying they called themselves socialists not that they aren’t right. Nazi politics are not easily put on the left-right spectrum. Which is why I say conservatism and nationalism is usually right

They called themselves socialists, the word changed meaning over time so you might argue they wouldn’t be considered socialists right now, but they sure as hell were considered socialists then. From the same source:

Opponents of NSDAP also used the word “Sozi” prior to “Nazi” as a derogative representation of the word Sozialist or “Socialist” in English.

It’s just regular English mate, also what the hell do you mean with ask not being a verb if youre selling used Lincolns??

That’s like saying everything left is bad because look at how the Sovjets ended up