[Espressosaurus]

How much of America’s growth since the 40s is attributable to its hegemony, stability, and the emergence of USD as the reserve currency of the world? And where other developed, stable nations started dropping in population, the US continued growing thanks to immigration and its center as a research Mecca.

All of those are being unwound as we speak, and it’ll take decades to prove to the world that any trade policy and government agreements may be kept longer than 4 years.

[refurb]

The US became the wealthiest country on a per capita income basis in the 1880’s, over taking the UK.

The US was quite isolationist up until the end of WW2, so I’d argue global hegemony isn’t that important when it comes to economic performance.

[Braxton1980]

What about the Spanish American war (1898), the Philippine-American war(1899), and World War One (1917)

[refurb]

The US was a local power, but by no means a global hegemon during that period.

Spanish American war was mostly isolated to the Western hemisphere (although the US gained colonial possessions after).

It took forever to join WW1 due to the small size of the US standing military. Same with WW2.

It wasn’t until after WW2 the US was able to project power globally and through that, set the global power structure with the USSR.

[Braxton1980]

What you said is true but my comment was in reply to

"The US was quite isolationist up until the end of WW2"

Being involved in these wars, regardless of entry time, is on no way "quite isolationist'

[0xDEAFBEAD]

>growth since the 40s

The US growth trend has been fairly constant since the late 1800s. There's no real discontinuity in the trend around the time the US become hegemon.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/GDP_per_...

Part of why Switzerland is so stable is because of its neutrality. Switzerland doesn't have to deal with Russia interfering in its elections the way the US does.