6 ms·

Yes, the world is a chaotic reflexive system and trying to manipulate it always creates unintended consequences. The US absolutely does dumb stuff all the time,

Yes, the world is a chaotic reflexive system and trying to manipulate it always creates unintended consequences. The US absolutely does dumb stuff all the time, and power always gets abused. But for a contrarian view on the “US Bad” narrative, check out a book called The Accidental Superpower Here’s a good summary of the book: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-the-accidental-superpower https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-the-a... It presents an interesting case that the relative peace of modern society is entirely due to US military over-investment brought on by the Cold War—which allows for uninterrupted global supply chains, safe global trade, and enforces the intertwining of economic interests through global markets. Absent the US existing, the world doesn’t suddenly become a utopia of people living happily ever after. Humans don’t have a great track record of being nice to each other. Unfortunately the alternative options to US power don’t look all that great.

dncornholio 5y ago
The amount of goodwill the US had from ending WWII is sadly running out. US felt invincible after it and tried to do the right thing. But did not actually manage to replicate to what they did in WWII. Backup these results with data is not the way to go. You have to proof the same results could have not been achieved without force. Which is impossible to proof IMO
- pembrook 5y ago
  Sure, it’s impossible to prove what would have happened otherwise (given the chaotic reflexive system). But an interesting thought experiment, imagine, after ending WWII the US and its people simply sunk into the ocean. Then you’ve got a massive imbalance of power tilted towards Stalin and the Soviets with nuclear weapons and allied with China, vs a weak UK and France. While it’s impossible to prove the USSR wouldn’t have started caring about democracy and human rights and stopped caring about expansion on their own...I don’t think it’s a leap to say the world would be a worse place.
  - notsureaboutpg 5y ago
    But your alternative scenario is ridiculous. Rather than the US and its wealth and power disappear (causing a power imbalance in the process), what if the US simply didn't enter the 20 year long Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, as an example? That is very hard to say the world would be a worse place as a result.
  - dncornholio 5y ago
    Same what if problem.. Of course the shift in power would change how we would life now, probably for the worse. That still doesn't justify anything.
- cies 5y ago
  > goodwill the US had from ending WWII is sadly running out. Sadly? It's about time. Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, most of Latin America, many places in Africa. They all have a US hangover. > US felt invincible after it and tried to do the right thing. Serious? What propaganda outlet do you read? They try to help their big biz make max profits. That's all. That's not "the right thing". Yeah sure they sell it as "the right thing". Who does not...
  - dncornholio 5y ago
    Thank you for saying things so directly. I was trying to give them at least some slack, maybe it's already time.. but I'm afraid my personality wont let me. It's like giving up hope
  - joyeuse6701 5y ago
    Yet the US is still the premier nation that everyone tries to immigrate to, because as a nation it actually works. The same can’t be said of many of the nations you mentioned, and that was before U.S involvement. The cool narrative of today is to point a finger at the west, but most people I think who espouse this view haven’t had the misery of living under the absolutely nuts regimes that exist in this world.
    - andrepd 5y ago
      >Yet the US is still the premier nation that everyone tries to immigrate to Yes, because they are richest natiom in the world. How is that statement not a complete non sequitur to what was being discussed?
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - joyeuse6701 5y ago
        The immediate post I responded to was arguing that the US doesn’t do the right thing, but tries to extract max profits for its big businesses and a bunch of foreign policy mistakes. My point was the US is more than that, and “good” as illustrated by its popularity with immigrants. You can, actually, in this court system receive justice, you can speak your mind at least legally without reprisal. You can leave this nation if you so choose. Being just a “rich” nation isn’t it. There are many rich nations and many not as accommodating.
- fallingknife 5y ago
  > US felt invincible after it and tried to do the right thing Wait, you think that was the motivation for US actions?
- sandworm101 5y ago
  >> the US had from ending WWII is sadly running out. Right there is half of the animosity behind the cold war. Try telling a Russian that it was the US that "ended" WWII. Remember to duck. The US bombings of Japan were bad, but worse was the threat of a Russian invasion of the home islands. Japan decided that it would rather be occupied by Americans than Russians. And it was Russian troops on the streets of Berlin. They suffered far more losses and killed more enemies. It isn't "WWII" in Russia. It's "The Great Patriotic War". Despite what Texas highschool textbooks say, the US did not end that war solo.
  - joyeuse6701 5y ago
    True, the Americans were the better alternative for hegemon, hands down.
geraneum 5y ago
I agree with you that a “US Bad” view which paints everything America as evil is misguided. But also the other extreme which portraits US as a savior and protector is also not true. From the book: > American disinterest in the world means that American security guarantees are unlikely to be honored. Competitions held in check for the better part of a century will return. Wars of opportunism will come back into fashion. It sounds like a narrative where a powerful monopolistic entity backed by military power bullies everyone else and claims to provide “protection” for them. When was the last time consolidated power in one place ended up to be good for people? I believe a world with US as a powerful country along with other equally powerful nations (an equilibrium) is a much better place for everyone to live in (also for people of US). Maybe it’s naive, at least for now, but one can only dream.
- pembrook 5y ago
  I also agree an equilibrium would be the ideal state. But I just don’t think humans do equilibrium well. We seem to have a constant need to seek control or to be controlled.
- cozos 5y ago
  Didn't we have that equilibrium (sorta) with USSR? I don't think it was a good kind of equilibrium - mutually assured destruction and all.
  - sandworm101 5y ago
    Nope. Pick any point in history and there was a huge imbalance between the sides. Often such "gaps" were unrecognized at the time, but each side would later learn that their perception of the other was incorrect. The "missile gap" and "bomber gap" were illusory. The public picture, the one on which budgets were based, was disconnected from the intelligence picture which was in turn often disconnected from the on-the-ground reality. Those involved at each stage of abstraction turned the information to suit their own needs. People who sold airplanes in the US counted extra bombers in the USSR. The people who drafted budgets counted more troops in the opposing army. In the end they all got what they wanted: massive spending on material. An interesting example is the number of ICBMs programs on both sides. The engineering culture within the USSR meant that it had many different missile designs, some only ever resulting in a handful of missiles. Missiles would have short service lives and then be replaced by a new model. The Americans were different. They stuck to a smaller number of designs but mass produced and maintained them for decades. Both sides perceived that the other "had more missiles" because they were effectively counting them differently. The USSR saw American missile factories churning out missiles. The US saw a flood of new designs on parade and assumed they were being mass produced. Such cultural splits continue to inflate budgets today.
h0l0cube 5y ago
> Absent the US existing, the world doesn’t suddenly become a utopia of people living happily ever after. And importantly we can't know the counterfactual, so we can't claim that the US is responsible for all those good outcomes with any real certainty, and it's entirely possible that the incentives were there no matter which nation had the resources to control global affairs.
jairofloress 5y ago
Nice review! Thanks!

dncornholio 5y ago

The amount of goodwill the US had from ending WWII is sadly running out. US felt invincible after it and tried to do the right thing. But did not actually manage to replicate to what they did in WWII. Backup these results with data is not the way to go. You have to proof the same results could have not been achieved without force. Which is impossible to proof IMO

pembrook 5y ago
Sure, it’s impossible to prove what would have happened otherwise (given the chaotic reflexive system). But an interesting thought experiment, imagine, after ending WWII the US and its people simply sunk into the ocean. Then you’ve got a massive imbalance of power tilted towards Stalin and the Soviets with nuclear weapons and allied with China, vs a weak UK and France. While it’s impossible to prove the USSR wouldn’t have started caring about democracy and human rights and stopped caring about expansion on their own...I don’t think it’s a leap to say the world would be a worse place.
- notsureaboutpg 5y ago
  But your alternative scenario is ridiculous. Rather than the US and its wealth and power disappear (causing a power imbalance in the process), what if the US simply didn't enter the 20 year long Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, as an example? That is very hard to say the world would be a worse place as a result.
- dncornholio 5y ago
  Same what if problem.. Of course the shift in power would change how we would life now, probably for the worse. That still doesn't justify anything.
cies 5y ago
> goodwill the US had from ending WWII is sadly running out. Sadly? It's about time. Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, most of Latin America, many places in Africa. They all have a US hangover. > US felt invincible after it and tried to do the right thing. Serious? What propaganda outlet do you read? They try to help their big biz make max profits. That's all. That's not "the right thing". Yeah sure they sell it as "the right thing". Who does not...
- dncornholio 5y ago
  Thank you for saying things so directly. I was trying to give them at least some slack, maybe it's already time.. but I'm afraid my personality wont let me. It's like giving up hope
- joyeuse6701 5y ago
  Yet the US is still the premier nation that everyone tries to immigrate to, because as a nation it actually works. The same can’t be said of many of the nations you mentioned, and that was before U.S involvement. The cool narrative of today is to point a finger at the west, but most people I think who espouse this view haven’t had the misery of living under the absolutely nuts regimes that exist in this world.
  - andrepd 5y ago
    >Yet the US is still the premier nation that everyone tries to immigrate to Yes, because they are richest natiom in the world. How is that statement not a complete non sequitur to what was being discussed?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - joyeuse6701 5y ago
      The immediate post I responded to was arguing that the US doesn’t do the right thing, but tries to extract max profits for its big businesses and a bunch of foreign policy mistakes. My point was the US is more than that, and “good” as illustrated by its popularity with immigrants. You can, actually, in this court system receive justice, you can speak your mind at least legally without reprisal. You can leave this nation if you so choose. Being just a “rich” nation isn’t it. There are many rich nations and many not as accommodating.
fallingknife 5y ago
> US felt invincible after it and tried to do the right thing Wait, you think that was the motivation for US actions?
sandworm101 5y ago
>> the US had from ending WWII is sadly running out. Right there is half of the animosity behind the cold war. Try telling a Russian that it was the US that "ended" WWII. Remember to duck. The US bombings of Japan were bad, but worse was the threat of a Russian invasion of the home islands. Japan decided that it would rather be occupied by Americans than Russians. And it was Russian troops on the streets of Berlin. They suffered far more losses and killed more enemies. It isn't "WWII" in Russia. It's "The Great Patriotic War". Despite what Texas highschool textbooks say, the US did not end that war solo.
- joyeuse6701 5y ago
  True, the Americans were the better alternative for hegemon, hands down.

geraneum 5y ago

I agree with you that a “US Bad” view which paints everything America as evil is misguided. But also the other extreme which portraits US as a savior and protector is also not true. From the book: > American disinterest in the world means that American security guarantees are unlikely to be honored. Competitions held in check for the better part of a century will return. Wars of opportunism will come back into fashion. It sounds like a narrative where a powerful monopolistic entity backed by military power bullies everyone else and claims to provide “protection” for them. When was the last time consolidated power in one place ended up to be good for people? I believe a world with US as a powerful country along with other equally powerful nations (an equilibrium) is a much better place for everyone to live in (also for people of US). Maybe it’s naive, at least for now, but one can only dream.

pembrook 5y ago
I also agree an equilibrium would be the ideal state. But I just don’t think humans do equilibrium well. We seem to have a constant need to seek control or to be controlled.
cozos 5y ago
Didn't we have that equilibrium (sorta) with USSR? I don't think it was a good kind of equilibrium - mutually assured destruction and all.
- sandworm101 5y ago
  Nope. Pick any point in history and there was a huge imbalance between the sides. Often such "gaps" were unrecognized at the time, but each side would later learn that their perception of the other was incorrect. The "missile gap" and "bomber gap" were illusory. The public picture, the one on which budgets were based, was disconnected from the intelligence picture which was in turn often disconnected from the on-the-ground reality. Those involved at each stage of abstraction turned the information to suit their own needs. People who sold airplanes in the US counted extra bombers in the USSR. The people who drafted budgets counted more troops in the opposing army. In the end they all got what they wanted: massive spending on material. An interesting example is the number of ICBMs programs on both sides. The engineering culture within the USSR meant that it had many different missile designs, some only ever resulting in a handful of missiles. Missiles would have short service lives and then be replaced by a new model. The Americans were different. They stuck to a smaller number of designs but mass produced and maintained them for decades. Both sides perceived that the other "had more missiles" because they were effectively counting them differently. The USSR saw American missile factories churning out missiles. The US saw a flood of new designs on parade and assumed they were being mass produced. Such cultural splits continue to inflate budgets today.

h0l0cube 5y ago

> Absent the US existing, the world doesn’t suddenly become a utopia of people living happily ever after. And importantly we can't know the counterfactual, so we can't claim that the US is responsible for all those good outcomes with any real certainty, and it's entirely possible that the incentives were there no matter which nation had the resources to control global affairs.

jairofloress 5y ago

Nice review! Thanks!