2 ms·

America as a whole benefits from being the world hegemon. Having the dollar as the reserve currency has allowed the US to run massive deficits, impose economic

America as a whole benefits from being the world hegemon. Having the dollar as the reserve currency has allowed the US to run massive deficits, impose economic sanctions, and get cheaper resources (especially oil). All Americans have benefited from this - even the poorest American state would count as one of the richest nations in the world if it were independent. If the people at the bottom don't see that, then its a fault of inequality in the American system. All nations and societies need to distribute wealth in some way, and there's nothing that says America needs to be high unequal to maintain its empire (or says tht having an empire implies inequality). That American society is so unequal is a decision that Americans have made. I doubt this is really because of the elites - America makes a big deal out of its democracy and even party leaders are elected by the people. But it is still a choice Americans have made. Reliniquishing the empire will not help the people at the bottom. A world in which China dominates, in which the global reserve currency is the yuan or the euro, is not one in which Americans of any wealth prosper.

palmotea 2y ago
> America as a whole benefits from being the world hegemon. Having the dollar as the reserve currency has allowed the US to run massive deficits, impose economic sanctions, and get cheaper resources (especially oil). All Americans have benefited from this - even the poorest American state would count as one of the richest nations in the world if it were independent. That's the propaganda line, but it sounds like GDP-per-capita, where it neglects the effects of inequality (as you mention later). It's not going to resonate for the guy who lost his job and had his community decimated, because his employer moved the factory he worked at to Mexico or China. > That American society is so unequal is a decision that Americans have made. I doubt this is really because of the elites - America makes a big deal out of its democracy and even party leaders are elected by the people. But it is still a choice Americans have made. It's "a decision that [SOME] Americans have made," it's not a decision that was made, freely and fairly, by Americans, collectively. I think the thing you're missing is that inequality leads to an inequality of domestic power. The people who benefit from that inequality have is disproportionate effect on the discourse (by funding think tanks, etc.), on candidate selection, etc. That leads to a menu of options where the elite always win (Anand Giridharadas has written some stuff on "win-win" that's relevant). > Reliniquishing the empire will not help the people at the bottom. A world in which China dominates, in which the global reserve currency is the yuan or the euro, is not one in which Americans of any wealth prosper. It will not, but ultimately the blame lies on the wealthy Americans who got too greedy, not the Americans that are typically blamed (e.g. people on the bottom who voted for the disapproved guy).

palmotea 2y ago

> America as a whole benefits from being the world hegemon. Having the dollar as the reserve currency has allowed the US to run massive deficits, impose economic sanctions, and get cheaper resources (especially oil). All Americans have benefited from this - even the poorest American state would count as one of the richest nations in the world if it were independent. That's the propaganda line, but it sounds like GDP-per-capita, where it neglects the effects of inequality (as you mention later). It's not going to resonate for the guy who lost his job and had his community decimated, because his employer moved the factory he worked at to Mexico or China. > That American society is so unequal is a decision that Americans have made. I doubt this is really because of the elites - America makes a big deal out of its democracy and even party leaders are elected by the people. But it is still a choice Americans have made. It's "a decision that [SOME] Americans have made," it's not a decision that was made, freely and fairly, by Americans, collectively. I think the thing you're missing is that inequality leads to an inequality of domestic power. The people who benefit from that inequality have is disproportionate effect on the discourse (by funding think tanks, etc.), on candidate selection, etc. That leads to a menu of options where the elite always win (Anand Giridharadas has written some stuff on "win-win" that's relevant). > Reliniquishing the empire will not help the people at the bottom. A world in which China dominates, in which the global reserve currency is the yuan or the euro, is not one in which Americans of any wealth prosper. It will not, but ultimately the blame lies on the wealthy Americans who got too greedy, not the Americans that are typically blamed (e.g. people on the bottom who voted for the disapproved guy).