"Pax Americana"= subsidizing poor nations?

[makattak]

The thread Team American World Police got me thinking

We all know how the U.S. has been paying for the defense of Europe for the past 70-ish years, and enforcing peace worldwide. (Leading to the complaints of the U.S. being the policeman of the world.)

Europe has ignored their military to pay for socialism. (A bad investment, in my opinion.)

I've been musing lately about the effect on countries that would have been unable to pay for their own defense, even if the U.S. were not providing it.

The U.S. military has effectively made places like Vietnam, Thailand, the Philippines and even somewhat advanced countries much safer investments. As such, we've subsidized their economic growth.

I have to wonder then- did the U.S. effectively fund current competitors to U.S. manual labor? Jobs get shipped overseas because it's cheaper, yes, but an unspoken part of that investment choice is "and it's unlikely that the country will be subsumed by some other country and all investments lost."

If the U.S. weren't the "world police" how much of what has become the "global economy" would exist?

(I'm not saying I have answers here, I'm asking questions.)

[roo_ster]

The U.S. military has effectively made places like Vietnam, Thailand, the Philippines and even somewhat advanced countries much safer investments. As such, we've subsidized their economic growth.

I have to wonder then- did the U.S. effectively fund current competitors to U.S. manual labor? Jobs get shipped overseas because it's cheaper, yes, but an unspoken part of that investment choice is "and it's unlikely that the country will be subsumed by some other country and all investments lost."

Yes.

But Fed.gov would still have made good their losses on the backs of the taxpayers.  Because risk management is for little people.  And the big people need only look at potential upside, secure in the knowledge that the downside will be eliminated with some political contributions, the ROI of which is very high.

If the U.S. weren't the "world police" how much of what has become the "global economy" would exist?

(I'm not saying I have answers here, I'm asking questions.)

Much less.  USA - Europe - Australia trade would exist.  Likely Australia would have gotten much more investment were East Asia not open for business due to invasion/coup/lather/rinse/repeat.

[RevDisk]

Yes, US has paid for the majority of world peace operations. Not that we didn't overthrow stable governments and install brutal dictatorships on a regular basis as well. We didn't do it out of the goodness of our heart. We did it to counter the Soviet plans for world domination, ostentatiously out of a desire to bring the joy of communism to everyone but really was just Russian imperialism.

Yes, US did effectively fund current competitors for US labor. Far from just 'manual labor'.
No, a world economy would be in existence without the US paying for global protection.

Just because we're stupid and willing to spend money like water doesn't mean other people are stupid.