4 ms·

First of all, please don't call the U.S. the "guarantor of international order". It sounds as if the U.S. were a benefactor to the world. It is not, it has been

by mrpopo 9y ago

First of all, please don't call the U.S. the "guarantor of international order". It sounds as if the U.S. were a benefactor to the world. It is not, it has been all political alliances and power-play. Sometimes the U.S. backed democratic leaders, sometimes not (c.f. Pinochet, Park Chung Hee...). Second, I myself consider the degradation of the current state of affairs in the world to be due to the global slowdown of economic growth. Less growth means less disposable income, means more social unrest and the rise of autocraty to maintain order.

audiometry 9y ago
Not just less growth, but also an increasing wealth-gap. Wealth gap will lead to increasingly dangerous conditions.
- SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
  Tangent, but... I'm actually curious if the wealth gap is part of what caused the slowdown -- the super rich got greedy, ate into their seed corn by taking too much wealth from the productive parts of the system, and now won't make the massive investments and restructuring of intake from them necessary to restore the system.
lgbr 9y ago
While the US often acts reprehensibly, such as in the case of Chile, Iraq, and so on, the overwhelming majority of the international influence the US exerts is positive. The entire stability of Europe, Japan, South Korea (although Park Chung Hee was a dictator), and a handful of other countries was built by the US government. Counter-examples are easy to list, but somehow the more numerous positive examples are forgotten. And what are you basing the "global slowdown of economic growth" on? Gross World Product has been growing at around 3% since the second world war, and hasn't slowed down recently at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product And particularly, Africa is growing faster than anywhere else.
- mrpopo 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    > 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 9y ago
      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.
- badosu 9y ago
  > While the US often acts reprehensibly, such as in the case of Chile, Iraq, and so on, the overwhelming majority of the international influence the US exerts is positive. (Citation Needed) Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
forapurpose 9y ago
> don't call the U.S. the "guarantor of international order". It sounds as if the U.S. were a benefactor to the world Order is not democracy or freedom; the US had the role of maintaining international order - preventing chaos. My comment pointed out many times when the US did not support democracy, including some of the same examples used by the parent. However, I'll point out here that while imperfect, democracy expanded rapidly under 'Pax Americana' from WWII until recently. Almost all of Europe and all of the Americas are now democratic; there are some African countries, India, East Asia, SE Asia, and more. It has been an incredible time for liberty, despite the many and substantial setbacks.

by mrpopo 9y ago

audiometry 9y ago

Not just less growth, but also an increasing wealth-gap. Wealth gap will lead to increasingly dangerous conditions.

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
Tangent, but... I'm actually curious if the wealth gap is part of what caused the slowdown -- the super rich got greedy, ate into their seed corn by taking too much wealth from the productive parts of the system, and now won't make the massive investments and restructuring of intake from them necessary to restore the system.

lgbr 9y ago

While the US often acts reprehensibly, such as in the case of Chile, Iraq, and so on, the overwhelming majority of the international influence the US exerts is positive. The entire stability of Europe, Japan, South Korea (although Park Chung Hee was a dictator), and a handful of other countries was built by the US government. Counter-examples are easy to list, but somehow the more numerous positive examples are forgotten. And what are you basing the "global slowdown of economic growth" on? Gross World Product has been growing at around 3% since the second world war, and hasn't slowed down recently at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product And particularly, Africa is growing faster than anywhere else.

mrpopo 9y ago
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 9y ago
  > 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 9y ago
    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.
badosu 9y ago
> While the US often acts reprehensibly, such as in the case of Chile, Iraq, and so on, the overwhelming majority of the international influence the US exerts is positive. (Citation Needed) Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...

forapurpose 9y ago

> don't call the U.S. the "guarantor of international order". It sounds as if the U.S. were a benefactor to the world Order is not democracy or freedom; the US had the role of maintaining international order - preventing chaos. My comment pointed out many times when the US did not support democracy, including some of the same examples used by the parent. However, I'll point out here that while imperfect, democracy expanded rapidly under 'Pax Americana' from WWII until recently. Almost all of Europe and all of the Americas are now democratic; there are some African countries, India, East Asia, SE Asia, and more. It has been an incredible time for liberty, despite the many and substantial setbacks.