| > The longstanding view of Americans opposed to the empire has been that the empire enriches defense contractors, but is a deadweight loss for the country as a whole. And they are right, but for the wrong reasons: yes, the MIC enriches defense contractors. That's obvious. But that's because that is how it is all set up and it need not be set up that way, that's a conscious choice by a lot of the actors. From outside of the USA that's an internal discussion, not one that we have influence on or that we directly experience the impact of. You could of course decide to raise the minimum wage, offer free health care and start treating drug abuse like a disease or a mental issue rather than as a criminal affair. But oh gollies, that sounds like socialism, and we can't have that, better if the poor stay poor and don't have any bargaining power. > But the goal isn’t to be a superpower. The goal is to be rich. You can't be rich as a country without having the power to stay rich unless you are a little mountain region country or riding on the coat tails of a country that is. You will need to protect your supply lines if you are an actor in a globalized world. So you have to become that country if you want to stay independent, and want to be supplied with the goods that you depend on. Alternatively you could sign a mutual defense pact but then you're right back where you started... Some Americans are richer, just like my friend just outside of LA who drives a Ferrari. He only drives it on his own grounds (which he has plenty of) because the road that his estate borders on is so bad that he would wreck his car if he drove it and while he's wealthy he is not so wealthy that he can afford to maintain a large chunk of the local infrastructure. Personally, I'd rather have a more modest car and a better road outside of my own grounds (or even a bike path...), and a more modest gap between the rich and the poor as well as between the rich and the middle class and the poor and the middle class. America has had the option to spread its riches to the people but instead had the people rack up ever larger debt whilst pampering the lucky few. That works - for a while - but in the end it sets the stage for a confrontation between the haves and the have nots. The MAGA movement is ultimately a mis-direction effort to do a smash and grab to make the rich a lot richer still because the clock is running out. It's a bit like the sheep voting for the wolves, they talk so convincing, we should at least give them a chance. What's for dinner you said? |
Countries become rich because of stable, competent institutions, not because they can maintain a military empire.
Ireland, Singapore are both examples of this.
> You will need to protect your supply lines if you are an actor in a globalized world. So you have to become that country if you want to stay independent, and want to be supplied with the goods that you depend on.
Protect supply lines from whom? how are military bases in Turkey, Germany, Poland, etc protecting "supply lines"?
one of the most important supply lines for europe (hydrocarbons from russia) has been stifled for the past 4 years - why havent our bases or military been able to keep it open?
similarly, why are our numerous bases in Middle East failing to protect supply lines?
i would argue that in both those cases, our aggressive military expansion (nato, israel expansion + gulf bases) caused the closure of those critical supply lines.