4 ms·
> building and rebuilding other country's economies is a boon to the local economy, particularly when that other country is footing the bill. That's literally w
by forapurpose 8y ago
> building and rebuilding other country's economies is a boon to the local economy, particularly when that other country is footing the bill. That's literally why the US was on top starting at the end of WWII.
I'm sure it helped, but the U.S. was already by far the dominant power before that economic activity.
At the end of WWII, the U.S. produced half of the world's GDP, a staggering number. It was the only advanced country which was physically untouched by the war, it had troops stationed throughout Europe and the Pacific, and it was the only country with nuclear weapons.
It says a lot, IMHO, that the U.S. didn't pursue a global empire at that point.
- baud147258 8y ago>It says a lot, IMHO, that the U.S. didn't pursue a global empire at that point. I think that, politically, it would have never been accepted by the population or the (conscription-based) army. Also they ended with big not-quite empire with NATO soon after.
- forapurpose 8y ago> I think that, politically, it would have never been accepted by the population or the (conscription-based) army. I agree, but the population is how the U.S. makes decisions (very broadly speaking) - that's the advantage of being a democracy.
- monocasa 8y ago> It says a lot, IMHO, that the U.S. didn't pursue a global empire at that point. I mean, there's a lot of practical reasons for post colonialism that don't have to do with any altruism on the part of the United States.
- awad 8y agoIt's not clear what the advantages of pure imperialism would have been at the time vs taking advantage of all of those exact pros you mentioned without outright taking over of nations. Global hegemony shifted from pure colonialism to neocolonialism over the few decades and it's still to be determined what the next wave will be.