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.)