6 ms·

I think the point is that you can choose to go live somewhere that is not the USA and you continue reap the benefits you describe, all the while paying a differ

I think the point is that you can choose to go live somewhere that is not the USA and you continue reap the benefits you describe, all the while paying a different countries taxes and personally benefitting much much more. If I was an American, I wouldn't want to be footing the bill for Global Security either.

siavosh 6y ago
That's a valid strategy, akin to geo-politicial arbitrage. But with trends as they are arbitrages don't last forever.
- geofft 6y ago
  Yes, but I won't last forever either. I have, if I try very hard, 40 years of useful employment left in me. It's possible that the Holy Karelian Empire will displace US hegemony in the next 40 years, but it's not that likely. It's also possible - and much more likely - that Finland will end up on the wrong side of the US and maybe be a site of a hot proxy war between the US and some upstart superpower within the next 40 years, but that also seems fairly unlikely. Forty years ago the world was not too different - the USSR and East Germany existed and China was not so strong, but the shape of the rest of it was otherwise broadly similar. There are very few countries that were prosperous and peaceful and lightly-armed in 1980 that are bad choices today.
fourstar 6y ago
>If I was an American, I wouldn't want to be footing the bill for Global Security either. I think if you transact in dollars or any economy on Earth, you probably do.
timsally 6y ago
> If I was an American, I wouldn't want to be footing the bill for Global Security either. There is a deep and nuanced conversation to be had here, though I will say fourstar already made one important point very succinctly. [1] I will point out that it has been the position of the American people since WWII that we are happy to foot the bill for global security. So while you might not feel that way, Americans feel differently. I'll give a bit of background on how that came to be. While Hitler was cutting through Europe there was a extensive internal debate in the US whether just focusing on defending the Pacific would be sufficient. During the time leading up the Battle of Britain, we decided the US view of security needed to be global-- if Hitler overran Britain the threat was just too large. It would turn out that the Brits won one of the most significant military victories in history [2], but prior that fact emerging American policy had come to the firm conclusion that we had to defend east as well as west. The Brits handled it, but it was tough to know that at the time. Since WWII we have not really reevaluated this policy. Some in the US believe it is time to do so and the current election will decide much of this. But in the last 10 years we have witnessed the biggest land grab in Europe since World War II [3], so now might not be the time to dissolve the world order. This may be more detail than you were expecting, but I hope you found it interesting. The world is a much more fragile place that I wish and at the end of the day we all need to chip in for global security. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25004863 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25004863 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain#Aftermath https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain#Aftermath [3] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/03/17/crimea-six-years-after-illegal-annexation/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/03/17/c...
- mapgrep 6y ago
  Ww2 in Europe was largely won by the USSR. Britain and the US opened a western front quite belatedly after years of begging by the USSR, after the Soviets sacrificed 15+ million lives to turn the tide, and after a lot of wasted time focusing on minor gains in North Africa (at Churchill’s insistence). Combined US and UK military’s deaths were less than a tenth those for USSR. We love to pat ourselves on the back with movies about D Day though. (They should be about Stalingrad.) Finland incidentally was a key ally for Hitler in his attack on the USSR.
  - Retric 6y ago
    The USSR acted as a serious meat grinder, but a little less than half of German losses where on the eastern front which also included polish forces and the USSR had minimal impact on the Pacific front. The US footed a lot of the material costs needed for Europe and the USSR to stay in the fight via lend lease. To the tune of about $575 billion inflation adjusted, and 22% of that going directly to the USSR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease So, the USSR played a significant role, but where far less effective than your suggesting.
    - D_Alex 6y ago
      >a little less than half of German losses where on the eastern front Where did you get this from? According to Wikipedia, and most other sources, 70-80% of German military casualties were on the Eastern Front. >The US footed a lot of the material costs needed for Europe and the USSR to stay in the fight... More than 80% of the aid to USSR was delivered after the Battle of Stalingrad was won by the USSR, and the outcome of the war was pretty much settled. >the USSR played a significant role ...far greater than what you are suggesting.
      - timsally 6y ago
        > More than 80% of the aid to USSR was delivered after the Battle of Stalingrad was won by the USSR, and the outcome of the war was pretty much settled. If you think WWII was settled in February of '43 then that says all we need to know regarding your credibility on this matter. I only mean to be as harsh as is necessary, but it is crazy to be as cavalier as you are being regarding the history of a war where so many lives were lost.
enriquto 6y ago
> footing the bill for Global Security either. It is way too generous towards the USA to describe its military as "Global Security". The U.S. military main job overseas consists in defending north-american economic interests by military means. If this implies overthrowing democratic governments or supporting dictatorships, or the inverse, so be it. It is more a like a mafia (that protects the economic interests of the people who support them) than a police force (that is supposed to protect everybody).

siavosh 6y ago

That's a valid strategy, akin to geo-politicial arbitrage. But with trends as they are arbitrages don't last forever.

geofft 6y ago
Yes, but I won't last forever either. I have, if I try very hard, 40 years of useful employment left in me. It's possible that the Holy Karelian Empire will displace US hegemony in the next 40 years, but it's not that likely. It's also possible - and much more likely - that Finland will end up on the wrong side of the US and maybe be a site of a hot proxy war between the US and some upstart superpower within the next 40 years, but that also seems fairly unlikely. Forty years ago the world was not too different - the USSR and East Germany existed and China was not so strong, but the shape of the rest of it was otherwise broadly similar. There are very few countries that were prosperous and peaceful and lightly-armed in 1980 that are bad choices today.

fourstar 6y ago

>If I was an American, I wouldn't want to be footing the bill for Global Security either. I think if you transact in dollars or any economy on Earth, you probably do.

timsally 6y ago

> If I was an American, I wouldn't want to be footing the bill for Global Security either. There is a deep and nuanced conversation to be had here, though I will say fourstar already made one important point very succinctly. [1] I will point out that it has been the position of the American people since WWII that we are happy to foot the bill for global security. So while you might not feel that way, Americans feel differently. I'll give a bit of background on how that came to be. While Hitler was cutting through Europe there was a extensive internal debate in the US whether just focusing on defending the Pacific would be sufficient. During the time leading up the Battle of Britain, we decided the US view of security needed to be global-- if Hitler overran Britain the threat was just too large. It would turn out that the Brits won one of the most significant military victories in history [2], but prior that fact emerging American policy had come to the firm conclusion that we had to defend east as well as west. The Brits handled it, but it was tough to know that at the time. Since WWII we have not really reevaluated this policy. Some in the US believe it is time to do so and the current election will decide much of this. But in the last 10 years we have witnessed the biggest land grab in Europe since World War II [3], so now might not be the time to dissolve the world order. This may be more detail than you were expecting, but I hope you found it interesting. The world is a much more fragile place that I wish and at the end of the day we all need to chip in for global security. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25004863 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25004863 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain#Aftermath https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain#Aftermath [3] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/03/17/crimea-six-years-after-illegal-annexation/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/03/17/c...

mapgrep 6y ago
Ww2 in Europe was largely won by the USSR. Britain and the US opened a western front quite belatedly after years of begging by the USSR, after the Soviets sacrificed 15+ million lives to turn the tide, and after a lot of wasted time focusing on minor gains in North Africa (at Churchill’s insistence). Combined US and UK military’s deaths were less than a tenth those for USSR. We love to pat ourselves on the back with movies about D Day though. (They should be about Stalingrad.) Finland incidentally was a key ally for Hitler in his attack on the USSR.
- Retric 6y ago
  The USSR acted as a serious meat grinder, but a little less than half of German losses where on the eastern front which also included polish forces and the USSR had minimal impact on the Pacific front. The US footed a lot of the material costs needed for Europe and the USSR to stay in the fight via lend lease. To the tune of about $575 billion inflation adjusted, and 22% of that going directly to the USSR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease So, the USSR played a significant role, but where far less effective than your suggesting.
  - D_Alex 6y ago
    >a little less than half of German losses where on the eastern front Where did you get this from? According to Wikipedia, and most other sources, 70-80% of German military casualties were on the Eastern Front. >The US footed a lot of the material costs needed for Europe and the USSR to stay in the fight... More than 80% of the aid to USSR was delivered after the Battle of Stalingrad was won by the USSR, and the outcome of the war was pretty much settled. >the USSR played a significant role ...far greater than what you are suggesting.
    - timsally 6y ago
      > More than 80% of the aid to USSR was delivered after the Battle of Stalingrad was won by the USSR, and the outcome of the war was pretty much settled. If you think WWII was settled in February of '43 then that says all we need to know regarding your credibility on this matter. I only mean to be as harsh as is necessary, but it is crazy to be as cavalier as you are being regarding the history of a war where so many lives were lost.

enriquto 6y ago

> footing the bill for Global Security either. It is way too generous towards the USA to describe its military as "Global Security". The U.S. military main job overseas consists in defending north-american economic interests by military means. If this implies overthrowing democratic governments or supporting dictatorships, or the inverse, so be it. It is more a like a mafia (that protects the economic interests of the people who support them) than a police force (that is supposed to protect everybody).