[mrpopo]

You talk as if I am forgetting the positive contributions of U.S. interventions, but I clearly specified that sometimes the U.S. contributed to democracy, sometimes not. My point was the U.S. did not do this out of pure goodwill, but to preserve their political alliances and world leader position.

It is fair to discuss if the global economic growth is slowing or not. I still think that is the case, excluding China, India and Africa. And that the GDP growth is not a good number for this, as it can be artificially inflated by government policies, without increasing the median income/buying power of the population.

[lgbr]

> You talk as if I am forgetting the positive contributions of U.S. interventions, but I clearly specified that sometimes the U.S. contributed to democracy, sometimes not.

You said "It sounds as if the U.S. were a benefactor to the world. It is not...". In the majority if cases, the U.S. has clearly had a positive influence, meaning that it is indeed a benefactor to the world.

> I still think that is the case, excluding China, India and Africa.

Of course by excluding 53% of the world's population, including the country in question, it's really easy to say that GDP growth is slowing, but that makes no sense.

[mrpopo]

The U.S. had a net positive influence on their historical allied countries and an overall negative influence on their geopolitical opponents. I will not dwelve into which one is the majority of the world, that is not the point.