5 ms·

The United States was never an empire. In fact the US rejected that ambition at the end of WWII, when the world laid in ruin. Occupation of foreign countries ha

The United States was never an empire. In fact the US rejected that ambition at the end of WWII, when the world laid in ruin. Occupation of foreign countries has always been tenuous. What we’re seeing with the Navy is the result of a US disinterested in flexing any sort of naval muscle for but its most strategic allies in the traditional realms like securing shipping lanes. “Hallmarks of a dying empire” implies, somehow, a loss in territory or capability. Neither is true for the US. There just simply isn’t a compelling reason to maintain the same level of naval readiness that they had in the last.

4RealFreedom 4y ago
I think there's more to a 'dying empire' than losing territory or capability. The US is more politically polarized today, the National Debt is at 31 T, we're currently in a recession with no signs of easing, and China is making waves around the world - the culmination is daunting. I worry for the future.
- mlindner 4y ago
  China is facing a debt crisis that makes the US debt look like nothing along with a very rapidly aging population, one of the fastest aging in the world, despite not having reached the level of development of similarly aged populations. China's population likely has already started to decline. We don't need to worry about China, they'll handle ending themselves themselves.
  - 4RealFreedom 4y ago
    I really hope so. They've been making inroads throughout the world. If there's one thing I've learned it's never underestimate the CCP.
- snowwrestler 4y ago
  The U.S. is less politically polarized than either the late 1960s or (especially) the 1860s. The national debt is far lower, as a percentage of GDP, than in the 1950s. U.S. GDP grew at 3.2% annualized rate in the most recent quarter, negating fears of a recession. When I worry for the future of the U.S., it is mostly because I see so many Americans willing to confidently assert untrue things.
  - 4RealFreedom 4y ago
    We can argue all day about polarization but it's very apparent. We had 2 straight quarters of negative gdp growth and 2023 isn't looking good. I hope you're right and things look up. The last part of your comment is completely unacceptable. You're calling me a fear monger in so many words. Great way to make intelligent conversation.
- kasey_junk 4y ago
  The US gdp grew in q3 more than it lost the previous 2 quarters and while the numbers aren’t out yet it likely will grow in q4. On the whole 2022 will go down as a positive gdp year so if there was a recession it was a very light one and it’s over already.
  - 4RealFreedom 4y ago
    The forecast for 2023 isn't looking good but I hope you're right.
    - kasey_junk 4y ago
      Current consensus is putting gdp at a low growth (0.5%) for 2023. Not a great economic outlook but certainly a lot better than 2020.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
psychphysic 4y ago
It rejected traditional empires. But is basically leader of the world. If aliens came to earth no matter where they land. Really they ought to go see the US president. Russia was always a counterpoint to that but while obviously a super power it didn't have the same military and political power as the US does. They achieve that through multiple means mostly cash cash money money. But also creating organisations and influencing participants to make the decisions it wants. Stuff like getting everyone to agree to using dollar under Bretton woods system. It's copyright beliefs, it's war on drugs etc.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- atchoo 4y ago
  I don't think Aliens would have found much value meeting Donald Trump.
  - psychphysic 4y ago
    Meeting him would at least convince them they were better off coming back in 4 years and seeing the state of things.
nautilius 4y ago
How is not “maintaining the same level of naval readiness “ not a “loss in capability”? I guess the grapes were sour anyway?
krona 4y ago
> The United States was never an empire. In fact the US rejected that ambition at the end of WWII The US rejected imperialism but insisted on global reserve currency status in 1944. Bretton Woods and later the petrodollar is how the US can benefit from a consistent trade deficit and its Navy is how the system is enforced. (see what happens to countries that think otherwise over the past 50 years).
- jcranmer 4y ago
  > (see what happens to countries that think otherwise over the past 50 years). Nothing? Because none of the wars that the US has been involved with in the past 50 years has involved a country that took any steps to avoiding the use of dollar in international trade [1]. And several countries have taken such steps without much reaction from the US. Why the hell does this canard keep living on? [1] Well, okay, you might count the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a US-involved war. But an exemplar of the supposed US penchant for invading countries that dare thumb its nose at its hegemony it is very much not.
- mlindner 4y ago
  Bretton Woods was financially damaging to the US economy, not beneficial. That's why we ended it. Bretton Woods was set up to help repair Europe by subsidizing it with US market access. Further the safety of the world's oceans were also subsidized by US Navy protection. The entire point was to create a system to defend against the Soviets effectively by bribery via the US economy.
mikebonnell 4y ago
The United States has definitely had an empire. It intentionally diminished it's role in some of the formerly controlled land and territories, but an empire the US has. https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374172145/howtohideanempire https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374172145/howtohideanempi... In case you want to read more
bebop 4y ago
Tell that to: Hawaii, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, cnmi, the U.S. Virgin Islands. Seems like the narrative of not being an empire might be a bit of a myth in practice.
- credit_guy 4y ago
  Is there a single one in this list that would prefer not to be part of the US? Empire is when you keep people subjugated against their will. The US is the opposite of an empire.
  - adastra22 4y ago
    philippines, cuba, panama people are forgetting their history
    - credit_guy 4y ago
      What about them? Doesn't look to me they are part of the US.
      - adastra22 4y ago
        Read up on their history re: US occupation.
        credit_guy 4y ago
        I guess you're trying to make a point. If my point was not clear enough: if the US was an empire, all these territories would continue to be under US occupation. Also Japan. West Germany too. Now, here's the funny thing. Lots of people who hold the view that the US imperialistic, find various excuses for Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Some even go as far as claiming that the US aid to Ukraine is nothing but some further proof of the US imperialism. I'd be very curious to hear where you are on that.
  - kragen 4y ago
    condorcet demonstrated 200 years ago that it's incoherent to talk about what a group of more than four people collectively wants arrow sharpened this result to a needle point in the 01940s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theore... the nature of government is that it keeps people, individually, subjugated against their will; police that can only arrest people who want to be arrested, prisons who can only imprison people who want to be imprisoned, or armies that can only beat armies that want to be beaten, are not effective police, prisons, or armies empires have always worked by having subject governments willingly accept their subjugation by the empire; the 'willingness' of guam or samoa or hawai‘i to be governed by the usa is no different democracy is still better than dictatorship or other forms of monarchy, but it is a mistake to confuse the decisions of democratic governments with the desires of their citizens
riffic 4y ago
It may have never been an empire on paper, but if it walks like a duck what do you call it?
- mlindner 4y ago
  Well it never walked like the duck that is an empire, so no it wasn't an empire.
bretpiatt 4y ago
The United States is absolutely an Empire occupying territory, "...the U.S military has 200,000 active-service members deployed in at least 170 countries worldwide..." [1]. The United States extends tax to citizens and businesses living or operating outside its sovereign territory. United States citizens and businesses are large property and commerce owners in countries globally. While the United States is not directly appointing governments and directly managing policy language, it does influence indirectly. This is one pillar of difference between how it operates and a traditional empire. My perspective is this is a difference without distinction. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/03/28/all-the-countries-worldwide-with-a-u-s-military-presence-infographic/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/03/28/all-th...
- jcranmer 4y ago
  > The United States is absolutely an Empire occupying territory, "...the U.S military has 200,000 active-service members deployed in at least 170 countries worldwide..." Strictly speaking, that makes it a hegemony, not an empire.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
atchoo 4y ago
> The United States was never an empire 1865? Military suppression of secession is not a voluntary federation... it sure looks like an empire to me since then. The focus on non-contiguous regions to meet the definition of empire feels beyond what is required given empires can be contiguous. Can a state democratically secede in the modern age? My (non-US) understanding, is no, it's "unconstitutional". Pfft.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> The United States was never an empire. The United States is not an empire, it has an empire (that is, it is the hegemonic power that functions as the metropole of an empire.)

4RealFreedom 4y ago

I think there's more to a 'dying empire' than losing territory or capability. The US is more politically polarized today, the National Debt is at 31 T, we're currently in a recession with no signs of easing, and China is making waves around the world - the culmination is daunting. I worry for the future.

mlindner 4y ago
China is facing a debt crisis that makes the US debt look like nothing along with a very rapidly aging population, one of the fastest aging in the world, despite not having reached the level of development of similarly aged populations. China's population likely has already started to decline. We don't need to worry about China, they'll handle ending themselves themselves.
- 4RealFreedom 4y ago
  I really hope so. They've been making inroads throughout the world. If there's one thing I've learned it's never underestimate the CCP.
snowwrestler 4y ago
The U.S. is less politically polarized than either the late 1960s or (especially) the 1860s. The national debt is far lower, as a percentage of GDP, than in the 1950s. U.S. GDP grew at 3.2% annualized rate in the most recent quarter, negating fears of a recession. When I worry for the future of the U.S., it is mostly because I see so many Americans willing to confidently assert untrue things.
- 4RealFreedom 4y ago
  We can argue all day about polarization but it's very apparent. We had 2 straight quarters of negative gdp growth and 2023 isn't looking good. I hope you're right and things look up. The last part of your comment is completely unacceptable. You're calling me a fear monger in so many words. Great way to make intelligent conversation.
kasey_junk 4y ago
The US gdp grew in q3 more than it lost the previous 2 quarters and while the numbers aren’t out yet it likely will grow in q4. On the whole 2022 will go down as a positive gdp year so if there was a recession it was a very light one and it’s over already.
- 4RealFreedom 4y ago
  The forecast for 2023 isn't looking good but I hope you're right.
  - kasey_junk 4y ago
    Current consensus is putting gdp at a low growth (0.5%) for 2023. Not a great economic outlook but certainly a lot better than 2020.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

psychphysic 4y ago

It rejected traditional empires. But is basically leader of the world. If aliens came to earth no matter where they land. Really they ought to go see the US president. Russia was always a counterpoint to that but while obviously a super power it didn't have the same military and political power as the US does. They achieve that through multiple means mostly cash cash money money. But also creating organisations and influencing participants to make the decisions it wants. Stuff like getting everyone to agree to using dollar under Bretton woods system. It's copyright beliefs, it's war on drugs etc.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
atchoo 4y ago
I don't think Aliens would have found much value meeting Donald Trump.
- psychphysic 4y ago
  Meeting him would at least convince them they were better off coming back in 4 years and seeing the state of things.

nautilius 4y ago

How is not “maintaining the same level of naval readiness “ not a “loss in capability”? I guess the grapes were sour anyway?

krona 4y ago

> The United States was never an empire. In fact the US rejected that ambition at the end of WWII The US rejected imperialism but insisted on global reserve currency status in 1944. Bretton Woods and later the petrodollar is how the US can benefit from a consistent trade deficit and its Navy is how the system is enforced. (see what happens to countries that think otherwise over the past 50 years).

jcranmer 4y ago
> (see what happens to countries that think otherwise over the past 50 years). Nothing? Because none of the wars that the US has been involved with in the past 50 years has involved a country that took any steps to avoiding the use of dollar in international trade [1]. And several countries have taken such steps without much reaction from the US. Why the hell does this canard keep living on? [1] Well, okay, you might count the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a US-involved war. But an exemplar of the supposed US penchant for invading countries that dare thumb its nose at its hegemony it is very much not.
mlindner 4y ago
Bretton Woods was financially damaging to the US economy, not beneficial. That's why we ended it. Bretton Woods was set up to help repair Europe by subsidizing it with US market access. Further the safety of the world's oceans were also subsidized by US Navy protection. The entire point was to create a system to defend against the Soviets effectively by bribery via the US economy.

mikebonnell 4y ago

The United States has definitely had an empire. It intentionally diminished it's role in some of the formerly controlled land and territories, but an empire the US has. https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374172145/howtohideanempire https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374172145/howtohideanempi... In case you want to read more

bebop 4y ago

Tell that to: Hawaii, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, cnmi, the U.S. Virgin Islands. Seems like the narrative of not being an empire might be a bit of a myth in practice.

credit_guy 4y ago
Is there a single one in this list that would prefer not to be part of the US? Empire is when you keep people subjugated against their will. The US is the opposite of an empire.
- adastra22 4y ago
  philippines, cuba, panama people are forgetting their history
  - credit_guy 4y ago
    What about them? Doesn't look to me they are part of the US.
    - adastra22 4y ago
      Read up on their history re: US occupation.
      - credit_guy 4y ago
        I guess you're trying to make a point. If my point was not clear enough: if the US was an empire, all these territories would continue to be under US occupation. Also Japan. West Germany too. Now, here's the funny thing. Lots of people who hold the view that the US imperialistic, find various excuses for Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Some even go as far as claiming that the US aid to Ukraine is nothing but some further proof of the US imperialism. I'd be very curious to hear where you are on that.
- kragen 4y ago
  condorcet demonstrated 200 years ago that it's incoherent to talk about what a group of more than four people collectively wants arrow sharpened this result to a needle point in the 01940s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theore... the nature of government is that it keeps people, individually, subjugated against their will; police that can only arrest people who want to be arrested, prisons who can only imprison people who want to be imprisoned, or armies that can only beat armies that want to be beaten, are not effective police, prisons, or armies empires have always worked by having subject governments willingly accept their subjugation by the empire; the 'willingness' of guam or samoa or hawai‘i to be governed by the usa is no different democracy is still better than dictatorship or other forms of monarchy, but it is a mistake to confuse the decisions of democratic governments with the desires of their citizens

riffic 4y ago

It may have never been an empire on paper, but if it walks like a duck what do you call it?

mlindner 4y ago
Well it never walked like the duck that is an empire, so no it wasn't an empire.

bretpiatt 4y ago

The United States is absolutely an Empire occupying territory, "...the U.S military has 200,000 active-service members deployed in at least 170 countries worldwide..." [1]. The United States extends tax to citizens and businesses living or operating outside its sovereign territory. United States citizens and businesses are large property and commerce owners in countries globally. While the United States is not directly appointing governments and directly managing policy language, it does influence indirectly. This is one pillar of difference between how it operates and a traditional empire. My perspective is this is a difference without distinction. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/03/28/all-the-countries-worldwide-with-a-u-s-military-presence-infographic/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/03/28/all-th...

jcranmer 4y ago
> The United States is absolutely an Empire occupying territory, "...the U.S military has 200,000 active-service members deployed in at least 170 countries worldwide..." Strictly speaking, that makes it a hegemony, not an empire.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

atchoo 4y ago

> The United States was never an empire 1865? Military suppression of secession is not a voluntary federation... it sure looks like an empire to me since then. The focus on non-contiguous regions to meet the definition of empire feels beyond what is required given empires can be contiguous. Can a state democratically secede in the modern age? My (non-US) understanding, is no, it's "unconstitutional". Pfft.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> The United States was never an empire. The United States is not an empire, it has an empire (that is, it is the hegemonic power that functions as the metropole of an empire.)