4 ms·

Whenever I hear those arguments, I have to bring up a point: There is a very good reason why big, powerful empires always have a big military, meddle and stick

Whenever I hear those arguments, I have to bring up a point: There is a very good reason why big, powerful empires always have a big military, meddle and stick their noses into everyone's affairs. Economic power doesn't come from thin air. It has a lot to do with political power, influence and domination. Those are two sides of the same coin, they support and nurture each other. You reach limits of growth when you just trade and build up your own economy. Almost all foreign policy is dedicated to furthering self-serving goals. Often medium and long term, so not apparently visible. Often related to things the public know very little about. Just as often, completely misguided. But there's always a reason.

pm90 10y ago
Great point; there is also an additional dimension to this. It is impossible to emphasize just how important security is to the blooming of creative financial institutions and highly specialized & sophisticated economies. Its because the US and Europe have created a system where, say, a legal framework exists to get retribution in case of genuine foul play in either country, that we can have sophisticated trading channels. Without the security and stability provided by an overwhelmingly powerful, but mostly reasonable military, we don't have to worry about our trading networks being taken apart at will (basically, eliminate that risk). If that security apparatus ceases to exist, so will the advanced economy that the west has created (which has been slowly expanding, to other nations as well). e.g. look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_the_Third_Century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_the_Third_Century. The sophisticated trading network of the Roman empire quickly disintegrated and was one of the principle causes for its eventual demise.
- lunula 10y ago
  This long perspective is hard to ignore. It feels like we are walking the same historical path now. Let's hope things move slowly enough with respect to security that the trading networks stay intact.
adventured 10y ago
> Economic power doesn't come from thin air. It has a lot to do with political power, influence and domination. Those are two sides of the same coin. The US managed to create the world's largest economy by 1890, through trade and domestic industry, while almost entirely staying out of major foreign affairs. It wasn't until WW2 that the US emerged fully onto the global stage by necessity due mostly to Europe's disastrous politics and ideologies at the time. Clearly you can in fact have a massive economy without behaving the way the US has post WW2. Japan for some time had the world's second largest economy, they still have the third largest, and they've managed to mostly stay out of foreign affairs in the aggressive way the US has intervened.
- the_duke 10y ago
  History is complex. And interesting. And often we (and I) get it wrong. So I always enjoy a good discussion. :) The US profited hugely from slave trade and labor. (Which most Americans usually conveniently ignore) Which helped it build up. So colonialization and domination was a factor for the US before they became a superpower. It's true that in the earlier 19hundres the US were more reclusive and isolated. The US economy wasn't in a good state before and after WW2... The war gave a huge boost to the economy and lifted the US out of the Great Depression. That probably laid the groundwork for the huge military-industrial complex today. The Marshall plan wasn't just good will and benevolence either. A major goal was to create an export market to trade with. The US economy really took off after WW2! ( I can dig up a paper on that). Of course, building up a power base in western Europe to oppose Russia was also important. Also, the falling apart of the old, Europe based empires from the late 18th century to 1930 and then the WW2 left a power vacuum, which the US filled, together with Russia. And the world got a lot smaller then, thanks to airplanes, better technology. Nuclear weapons.
  - adventured 10y ago
    The US economy was embarrassing the major powers of Europe post civil war, when it came to almost all forms of industrial output. It was not after WW2 that the US economy really took off, it had been growing at an extreme pace from 1870-1930 - in fact that was the fastest period of growth in US history by far. The great depression was not just a US specific event.
notahacker 10y ago
And of course, one major power refraining from blundering into situations tends to create the opportunity for another to replace them The US has been less militarily active in Syria than in other recent Middle Eastern conflicts, partly as a result of fairly unambiguous policy mistakes in that region over the past decade and a half. Their place has been filled by Russia. I've yet to see a remotely persuasive argument that Syria is less badly off as a result.
phicoh 10y ago
I wonder if over time (and I'm talking many decades here) there is a shift from the military following the needs of trade to the military being used in a bigger power play that is actually unrelated to trade.

pm90 10y ago

Great point; there is also an additional dimension to this. It is impossible to emphasize just how important security is to the blooming of creative financial institutions and highly specialized & sophisticated economies. Its because the US and Europe have created a system where, say, a legal framework exists to get retribution in case of genuine foul play in either country, that we can have sophisticated trading channels. Without the security and stability provided by an overwhelmingly powerful, but mostly reasonable military, we don't have to worry about our trading networks being taken apart at will (basically, eliminate that risk). If that security apparatus ceases to exist, so will the advanced economy that the west has created (which has been slowly expanding, to other nations as well). e.g. look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_the_Third_Century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_the_Third_Century. The sophisticated trading network of the Roman empire quickly disintegrated and was one of the principle causes for its eventual demise.

lunula 10y ago
This long perspective is hard to ignore. It feels like we are walking the same historical path now. Let's hope things move slowly enough with respect to security that the trading networks stay intact.

adventured 10y ago

> Economic power doesn't come from thin air. It has a lot to do with political power, influence and domination. Those are two sides of the same coin. The US managed to create the world's largest economy by 1890, through trade and domestic industry, while almost entirely staying out of major foreign affairs. It wasn't until WW2 that the US emerged fully onto the global stage by necessity due mostly to Europe's disastrous politics and ideologies at the time. Clearly you can in fact have a massive economy without behaving the way the US has post WW2. Japan for some time had the world's second largest economy, they still have the third largest, and they've managed to mostly stay out of foreign affairs in the aggressive way the US has intervened.

the_duke 10y ago
History is complex. And interesting. And often we (and I) get it wrong. So I always enjoy a good discussion. :) The US profited hugely from slave trade and labor. (Which most Americans usually conveniently ignore) Which helped it build up. So colonialization and domination was a factor for the US before they became a superpower. It's true that in the earlier 19hundres the US were more reclusive and isolated. The US economy wasn't in a good state before and after WW2... The war gave a huge boost to the economy and lifted the US out of the Great Depression. That probably laid the groundwork for the huge military-industrial complex today. The Marshall plan wasn't just good will and benevolence either. A major goal was to create an export market to trade with. The US economy really took off after WW2! ( I can dig up a paper on that). Of course, building up a power base in western Europe to oppose Russia was also important. Also, the falling apart of the old, Europe based empires from the late 18th century to 1930 and then the WW2 left a power vacuum, which the US filled, together with Russia. And the world got a lot smaller then, thanks to airplanes, better technology. Nuclear weapons.
- adventured 10y ago
  The US economy was embarrassing the major powers of Europe post civil war, when it came to almost all forms of industrial output. It was not after WW2 that the US economy really took off, it had been growing at an extreme pace from 1870-1930 - in fact that was the fastest period of growth in US history by far. The great depression was not just a US specific event.

notahacker 10y ago

And of course, one major power refraining from blundering into situations tends to create the opportunity for another to replace them The US has been less militarily active in Syria than in other recent Middle Eastern conflicts, partly as a result of fairly unambiguous policy mistakes in that region over the past decade and a half. Their place has been filled by Russia. I've yet to see a remotely persuasive argument that Syria is less badly off as a result.

phicoh 10y ago

I wonder if over time (and I'm talking many decades here) there is a shift from the military following the needs of trade to the military being used in a bigger power play that is actually unrelated to trade.