5 ms·

You asked this exact question last week and I answered it. If you are just going to ignore the people who reply to you, why bother commenting?

rayiner 2y ago
But your answer was handwaving. What’s the evidentiary basis for concluding that maintaining bases all over the world benefits americans? The British Empire was motivated by mercantilism: by requiring colonies to sell raw materials to Britain and buy finished goods from Britain, it ensured Britain remained highest on the supply chain, and redirected capital from the colonies to Britain. We don’t do anything like that. We don’t extract resources from Europe at below market value. We run a trade deficit, so free trade doesn’t even help us. So what’s the concrete explanation that isn’t just recycling liberal internationalist tropes?
- lostdog 2y ago
  I would like to see the trade deficit evening out, but even then, the deficit is ~0.6% of our GDP. Charitably, the intake of goods we do support keeps our internal economy extremely productive, so even at a deficit maybe it's worth it. That said, it's not very difficult to fix the deficit if there were any will. And once fixed, the US would benefit from open maritime trade more than anyone else. Holding these bases helps us keep the world in order, and in the current order the US winds up on top. (Though the US does need to deal with China's incursions). It's funny to see you use the word "evidentiary" when you do not apply any standard to your own comments. If you do reply, please try to back up your points, since I'd like to understand where you're coming from.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    Why would we benefit from more trade when we don’t make anything? I don’t have evidence that american empire is bad for the economy. But the cost of maintaining it are indisputably high and result in a lot of immortality. So I would like evidence that maintaining an empire actually results in benefits that offset the cost. Economic theory certainly doesn’t predict that empires would make you richer than free markets. And if empire makes you richer, why is Europe so content to be under our yoke?
    - lostdog 2y ago
      Well, the US has been the most prosperous country for a long time, so clearly something is working. Maybe the "empire" has nothing to do with it, sure, but I'd like to see you support your position instead of nitpicking other people's.
    - palata 2y ago
      > why is Europe so content to be under our yoke? Sorry to disappoint, but Europe is not particularly content to be under the US yoke. Actually, the US has been actively pressuring Europe to keep it under their yoke. For decades.
    - nradov 2y ago
      We make a lot of stuff. The manufacturing industry contributes >$2T to US GDP. The US doesn't have an empire, but we do have a degree of worldwide hegemony. As a practical matter if the US turns isolationist then China will fill that gap. Will that make US citizens richer?
      - rayiner 2y ago
        > As a practical matter if the US turns isolationist then China will fill that gap. That sounds like a very neocon view of how the world works. We have to maintain an empire because if we don’t, someone else will?
        nradov 2y ago
        One nice thing about being a superpower is that we don't have to do anything. We can choose to be isolationist. That seems like a seductive option in the short term because it costs us nothing. But historically that approach hasn't worked out well for us in the past. Will the average US citizen be better off if China takes over as the primary global power? And stop being disingenuous by labelling the current US-led global security system as an "empire". Words mean things and I'm sure you're smart enough to know what a real empire looks like, so I can't imagine what you think you're accomplishing by trying to frame the debate that way.
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - rayiner 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
      [flagged]

rayiner 2y ago

But your answer was handwaving. What’s the evidentiary basis for concluding that maintaining bases all over the world benefits americans? The British Empire was motivated by mercantilism: by requiring colonies to sell raw materials to Britain and buy finished goods from Britain, it ensured Britain remained highest on the supply chain, and redirected capital from the colonies to Britain. We don’t do anything like that. We don’t extract resources from Europe at below market value. We run a trade deficit, so free trade doesn’t even help us. So what’s the concrete explanation that isn’t just recycling liberal internationalist tropes?

lostdog 2y ago
I would like to see the trade deficit evening out, but even then, the deficit is ~0.6% of our GDP. Charitably, the intake of goods we do support keeps our internal economy extremely productive, so even at a deficit maybe it's worth it. That said, it's not very difficult to fix the deficit if there were any will. And once fixed, the US would benefit from open maritime trade more than anyone else. Holding these bases helps us keep the world in order, and in the current order the US winds up on top. (Though the US does need to deal with China's incursions). It's funny to see you use the word "evidentiary" when you do not apply any standard to your own comments. If you do reply, please try to back up your points, since I'd like to understand where you're coming from.
- rayiner 2y ago
  Why would we benefit from more trade when we don’t make anything? I don’t have evidence that american empire is bad for the economy. But the cost of maintaining it are indisputably high and result in a lot of immortality. So I would like evidence that maintaining an empire actually results in benefits that offset the cost. Economic theory certainly doesn’t predict that empires would make you richer than free markets. And if empire makes you richer, why is Europe so content to be under our yoke?
  - lostdog 2y ago
    Well, the US has been the most prosperous country for a long time, so clearly something is working. Maybe the "empire" has nothing to do with it, sure, but I'd like to see you support your position instead of nitpicking other people's.
  - palata 2y ago
    > why is Europe so content to be under our yoke? Sorry to disappoint, but Europe is not particularly content to be under the US yoke. Actually, the US has been actively pressuring Europe to keep it under their yoke. For decades.
  - nradov 2y ago
    We make a lot of stuff. The manufacturing industry contributes >$2T to US GDP. The US doesn't have an empire, but we do have a degree of worldwide hegemony. As a practical matter if the US turns isolationist then China will fill that gap. Will that make US citizens richer?
    - rayiner 2y ago
      > As a practical matter if the US turns isolationist then China will fill that gap. That sounds like a very neocon view of how the world works. We have to maintain an empire because if we don’t, someone else will?
      - nradov 2y ago
        One nice thing about being a superpower is that we don't have to do anything. We can choose to be isolationist. That seems like a seductive option in the short term because it costs us nothing. But historically that approach hasn't worked out well for us in the past. Will the average US citizen be better off if China takes over as the primary global power? And stop being disingenuous by labelling the current US-led global security system as an "empire". Words mean things and I'm sure you're smart enough to know what a real empire looks like, so I can't imagine what you think you're accomplishing by trying to frame the debate that way.
_DeadFred_ 2y ago
[flagged]
- rayiner 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    [flagged]