3 ms·

Is it fair that the US has to keep subsidizing Europe, a collection of countries that constantly complain about the US? That tax and fine our companies while cr

Is it fair that the US has to keep subsidizing Europe, a collection of countries that constantly complain about the US? That tax and fine our companies while criticizing the US for its lack of a welfare state?

mytailorisrich 2y ago
They don't subsidise Europe. They keep Europe on a leash. That's why this is a double-edged sword for the US: if they force Europe to stand on its own two feet they will also lose influence and control over Europe.
- ahartmetz 2y ago
  The leash has been pretty long and the dog food was good (free defense through NATO!)... If any of that changes, the relationship will change.
  - mytailorisrich 2y ago
    Nothing is ever free...
    - ahartmetz 2y ago
      Of course not, but the deal seemed pretty OK so far...
  - adrian_b 2y ago
    There has been no free defense through NATO, because a great part of the military spending of the NATO countries has always gone to US companies, even in cases when alternative better deals had existed. The only benefit that USA can claim is that without being allied to USA many countries would have been forced to spend more for their defense. However most of that spending would not have gone to US companies, so USA has benefited from the alliance at least as much as the other members. USA has practically acted exactly like an insurance company. For now, until a war would involve NATO and USA would be forced to pay for it, during all the 3 quarters of a century during which USA never had to pay for a NATO war, USA has received yearly payments from the allies for military equipment, exactly like receiving insurance fees, so the balance for USA from the effects of the alliance is hugely positive. (Of course, like for most things done by the US government in international relations, the positive balance for USA is not felt by simple citizens, because all profits have been grabbed by the shareholders or managers of some big companies, e.g. those producing military equipment.) The claims about USA "subsidizing" allies are completely stupid, when frequently the "allies" have been blackmailed to accept contracts paying billions to US companies, not only for defense acquisitions, but also for some non-related infrastructure projects. Especially in the case of the more recent NATO members from Eastern Europe, they have been forced to pay dearly for their admission into NATO by accepting various very expensive and onerous contracts with some US companies (e.g. Bechtel), besides buying expensive US aircraft or the like.
meheleventyone 2y ago
This is the populist rhetoric to sell it to the base rather than the actual state of things. The US taking a more isolationist position does nothing but hurt the US.

mytailorisrich 2y ago

They don't subsidise Europe. They keep Europe on a leash. That's why this is a double-edged sword for the US: if they force Europe to stand on its own two feet they will also lose influence and control over Europe.

ahartmetz 2y ago
The leash has been pretty long and the dog food was good (free defense through NATO!)... If any of that changes, the relationship will change.
- mytailorisrich 2y ago
  Nothing is ever free...
  - ahartmetz 2y ago
    Of course not, but the deal seemed pretty OK so far...
- adrian_b 2y ago
  There has been no free defense through NATO, because a great part of the military spending of the NATO countries has always gone to US companies, even in cases when alternative better deals had existed. The only benefit that USA can claim is that without being allied to USA many countries would have been forced to spend more for their defense. However most of that spending would not have gone to US companies, so USA has benefited from the alliance at least as much as the other members. USA has practically acted exactly like an insurance company. For now, until a war would involve NATO and USA would be forced to pay for it, during all the 3 quarters of a century during which USA never had to pay for a NATO war, USA has received yearly payments from the allies for military equipment, exactly like receiving insurance fees, so the balance for USA from the effects of the alliance is hugely positive. (Of course, like for most things done by the US government in international relations, the positive balance for USA is not felt by simple citizens, because all profits have been grabbed by the shareholders or managers of some big companies, e.g. those producing military equipment.) The claims about USA "subsidizing" allies are completely stupid, when frequently the "allies" have been blackmailed to accept contracts paying billions to US companies, not only for defense acquisitions, but also for some non-related infrastructure projects. Especially in the case of the more recent NATO members from Eastern Europe, they have been forced to pay dearly for their admission into NATO by accepting various very expensive and onerous contracts with some US companies (e.g. Bechtel), besides buying expensive US aircraft or the like.

meheleventyone 2y ago

This is the populist rhetoric to sell it to the base rather than the actual state of things. The US taking a more isolationist position does nothing but hurt the US.