[redisman]

Why is it so hard to think longer term? What's good for the world is often great for the United States. Catching and quarantining this in time would have saved us from lots of deaths and a almost certain recession coming up this year.

[overeater]

While this may be true, and perhaps even for the dollar the United States benefits more than the cost (while the rest of the world gets a bit of a free ride). But as a taxpayer, I'd rather the US spend that dollar elsewhere, even if the highest ROI is in spending on world pandemic prevention.

That's to prevent the current situation where in game theory terms, we're being the sucker and so it's in everyone else's best interest to leech. We need to reach a new nash equilibrium where everyone is contributing together (which is eventually more optimal for everyone involved, despite the short term hit).

[gxnxcxcx]

If we are going to use game theory terms, then we are bound to acknowledge that not everything is a non-cooperative game.

[kitsuac]

Isn't one country paying the bill the definition of a non cooperative game? It's one player repeatedly 'tit' without any corresponding 'tat'

[gxnxcxcx]

If for every tit dollar you spend on outer prevention you can stop some tat percentage of disease spread both inwards and outwards, and then that has a provable impact on your own economy, I'd say playing the geopolitical sugar daddy is no selfless act neither in ther short term nor the long term.

I understand the need for assurance that those dollars are effectively working towards the intended goal, but assuming you are a sucker for paying the bill is only right if there was nothing of nutritional value to you in the menu.

So I guess the question is about working the data and crunching the numbers to know whether there is or isn't impact on your own economy and the welfare of your population, and not about not feeling like a sucker on the supranational ego scene.

[viklove]

Every country in the word is guilty of this then, not just the US.

[redisman]

Comparing only the money spent seems awfully naive. The US is definitely not the "loser" in its global hegemony.

[polotics]

Word! The exorbitant privilege of issuing the world's reserve currency has a price, you got to keep the pump primed. This setup used to work ok, it probably peaked in 1999 or so.