2 ms·

The US doesn't need military dominance to have 1/4 of the world's consumption. It needs to be able to pay people who have 1/4 of the world's production enough

The US doesn't need military dominance to have 1/4 of the world's consumption. It needs to be able to pay people who have 1/4 of the world's production enough that they sell it to us. And about 80% of that latter group are Americans anyway.

rayiner 14y ago
That works until the country that does have military dominance decides to conquer you and take that production for itself. The market is meaningless when force can be used to take what you can't purchase in the market. It is possible to be a wealthy nation that doesn't have military dominance (Switzerland, etc). The key is to be overall small enough that you can consume a lot per capita but still fly under the radar of the big boys. A country as big as the U.S. doesn't really have that choice.
- danielweber 14y ago
  Okay, I think I misread you. The meme of "the US only has 5% of the world people but consumes 25% of the world's resources!" is usually said by people who think it's "unfair" that the US is consuming "so much." If you are saying that the US needs military dominance because we need to protect our own domestic production from invasion, that's something else. I still disagree but not as forcefully as I would to the other characterization. (If an invader tried to invade America for the purpose of seizing our wealth, much of it would evaporate instantly. They can capture factories but more and more of it is IP that a potential invader could just stay home and pirate instead.)
  - rayiner 14y ago
    I have no problem with the U.S. consuming that much, but I don't think we could do it without American military hegemony (and I don't think Europe could do it without American military hegemony).
    - lifeisstillgood 14y ago
      I struggle with the "could not do it without military hegemony". I think the issue is military. Coca-cola achieved significant domination of world markets after WWII by piggy-backing on the distribution channels of the US Army. (essentially the troops were given morale boosting shipments of coke, later bottling agreements were put in place) So it is reasonable to argue that Coke has achieved its position on the back of The American Military, but not reasonable to say it achieved it because of US military action. An awful lot of US influence is down to pure dollar spend, which mostly comes through military related channels. Is the US' international reach down to its military, or its money? I would argue that had the last 50 years seen a global spend by the US Forestry Commission equal to that of the US military-industrial complex, then we would see Occupy! marches burning effigies of Yogi Bear.
      - serf 14y ago
        >>So it is reasonable to argue that Coke has achieved its position on the back of The American Military, but not reasonable to say it achieved it because of US military action. it's more reasonable to assume that Coca-Cola made most of its money by creating local factories in developing nations which struggled with getting clean water. This pushed the use of Coca Cola as a health conscious choice. On top of that, the labor was near free by western standards, the syrup price lock is so low, and the shipping is handled by the natives. Coca-Cola has also been accused of massive civil liberties violations due to their opportunistic nature in South America. This is usually too fringe for me to post, but http://killercoke.org/ http://killercoke.org/
        duaneb 14y ago
        It's not just Coke, though obviously they're an interesting case that's particularly close to home in e.g. Mexico. But many american companies have gotten contracts to privatize water resources and blatantly break the contracts, sometimes even providing people with worse water than what they were already getting. However, I don't think any of that would have been possible without the american military, though to say that Coke is so successful because of military action is rather absurd. Yes, it's probably true, but Coke's actions are so far removed from the military action (that happened decades, if not a century, ago) that it's a little dramatic and silly.
  - duaneb 14y ago
    Why is it you do not care about the US consuming that much? Do you not care that 96% of the world only has 75% of the world's resources? Are you really so centered on yourself and your culture you literally want us to exploit the rest of humanity? I don't think it's unfair, just morally despicable.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      How much would you pay to save the life of your wife? Your best friend? An acquaintance? A random American? A random Somali? The further away, in relation, a random human is from myself, the less that person's well-being affects me directly. It is, therefore, entirely rational to care less about their well-being than the well-being of humans closer to me. The morality of that is neither here nor there--and indeed it strikes me as a very corrupt system of morality that rejects one of the most basic of human instincts.
      - duaneb 14y ago
        Well, you're envisioning a world where your "moral" living, if you can get away with than Ayn Randian bullshit, is actively removing the ability of many other people to do the same. By pretty much every moral system, America is a pretty shitty place in a worldwide context. You think Kant, who wrote "Perpetual Peace", or John Stuart Mill, who advocated generating the most amount of happiness globally and said the best pleasures are intellectual (read: what people pirate on the internet), would approve of the way America (and Europe) holds the rest of the world hostage, economically and militarily? And honestly, most people on this site live far, far above what is necessary for a good life, in the sense of good health, food, and stability. It's a little sickening to see people not only ignore the rest of the world but to claim that it's "moral". Go spend a day watching people starve or die of curable sickness and then defend buying that nice car or that new computer. Hell, go into the ghetto and claim that what the upper class does to the lower classes (which is much nicer than what America does to the rest of the world) is moral. Look, we all want to provide for our loved ones, but to claim that the level of excess we all indulge in is moral is just disgusting. I literally want to vomit at the thought and I'm ashamed to share a citizenship with you—at least I have the grace to admit that I'm a pretty shitty person for not giving back to the world to the extent that I could. And at least I do SOMETHING (namely, volunteer and give unneeded money to efficient charities) to save the life of someone outside the US, which is more than most people do. I'm pretty sure the view of people suffering in third world countries is economically an entertainment product sold by CNN and christian charities.

rayiner 14y ago

That works until the country that does have military dominance decides to conquer you and take that production for itself. The market is meaningless when force can be used to take what you can't purchase in the market. It is possible to be a wealthy nation that doesn't have military dominance (Switzerland, etc). The key is to be overall small enough that you can consume a lot per capita but still fly under the radar of the big boys. A country as big as the U.S. doesn't really have that choice.

danielweber 14y ago
Okay, I think I misread you. The meme of "the US only has 5% of the world people but consumes 25% of the world's resources!" is usually said by people who think it's "unfair" that the US is consuming "so much." If you are saying that the US needs military dominance because we need to protect our own domestic production from invasion, that's something else. I still disagree but not as forcefully as I would to the other characterization. (If an invader tried to invade America for the purpose of seizing our wealth, much of it would evaporate instantly. They can capture factories but more and more of it is IP that a potential invader could just stay home and pirate instead.)
- rayiner 14y ago
  I have no problem with the U.S. consuming that much, but I don't think we could do it without American military hegemony (and I don't think Europe could do it without American military hegemony).
  - lifeisstillgood 14y ago
    I struggle with the "could not do it without military hegemony". I think the issue is military. Coca-cola achieved significant domination of world markets after WWII by piggy-backing on the distribution channels of the US Army. (essentially the troops were given morale boosting shipments of coke, later bottling agreements were put in place) So it is reasonable to argue that Coke has achieved its position on the back of The American Military, but not reasonable to say it achieved it because of US military action. An awful lot of US influence is down to pure dollar spend, which mostly comes through military related channels. Is the US' international reach down to its military, or its money? I would argue that had the last 50 years seen a global spend by the US Forestry Commission equal to that of the US military-industrial complex, then we would see Occupy! marches burning effigies of Yogi Bear.
    - serf 14y ago
      >>So it is reasonable to argue that Coke has achieved its position on the back of The American Military, but not reasonable to say it achieved it because of US military action. it's more reasonable to assume that Coca-Cola made most of its money by creating local factories in developing nations which struggled with getting clean water. This pushed the use of Coca Cola as a health conscious choice. On top of that, the labor was near free by western standards, the syrup price lock is so low, and the shipping is handled by the natives. Coca-Cola has also been accused of massive civil liberties violations due to their opportunistic nature in South America. This is usually too fringe for me to post, but http://killercoke.org/ http://killercoke.org/
      - duaneb 14y ago
        It's not just Coke, though obviously they're an interesting case that's particularly close to home in e.g. Mexico. But many american companies have gotten contracts to privatize water resources and blatantly break the contracts, sometimes even providing people with worse water than what they were already getting. However, I don't think any of that would have been possible without the american military, though to say that Coke is so successful because of military action is rather absurd. Yes, it's probably true, but Coke's actions are so far removed from the military action (that happened decades, if not a century, ago) that it's a little dramatic and silly.
- duaneb 14y ago
  Why is it you do not care about the US consuming that much? Do you not care that 96% of the world only has 75% of the world's resources? Are you really so centered on yourself and your culture you literally want us to exploit the rest of humanity? I don't think it's unfair, just morally despicable.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    How much would you pay to save the life of your wife? Your best friend? An acquaintance? A random American? A random Somali? The further away, in relation, a random human is from myself, the less that person's well-being affects me directly. It is, therefore, entirely rational to care less about their well-being than the well-being of humans closer to me. The morality of that is neither here nor there--and indeed it strikes me as a very corrupt system of morality that rejects one of the most basic of human instincts.
    - duaneb 14y ago
      Well, you're envisioning a world where your "moral" living, if you can get away with than Ayn Randian bullshit, is actively removing the ability of many other people to do the same. By pretty much every moral system, America is a pretty shitty place in a worldwide context. You think Kant, who wrote "Perpetual Peace", or John Stuart Mill, who advocated generating the most amount of happiness globally and said the best pleasures are intellectual (read: what people pirate on the internet), would approve of the way America (and Europe) holds the rest of the world hostage, economically and militarily? And honestly, most people on this site live far, far above what is necessary for a good life, in the sense of good health, food, and stability. It's a little sickening to see people not only ignore the rest of the world but to claim that it's "moral". Go spend a day watching people starve or die of curable sickness and then defend buying that nice car or that new computer. Hell, go into the ghetto and claim that what the upper class does to the lower classes (which is much nicer than what America does to the rest of the world) is moral. Look, we all want to provide for our loved ones, but to claim that the level of excess we all indulge in is moral is just disgusting. I literally want to vomit at the thought and I'm ashamed to share a citizenship with you—at least I have the grace to admit that I'm a pretty shitty person for not giving back to the world to the extent that I could. And at least I do SOMETHING (namely, volunteer and give unneeded money to efficient charities) to save the life of someone outside the US, which is more than most people do. I'm pretty sure the view of people suffering in third world countries is economically an entertainment product sold by CNN and christian charities.