I personally would love to see the US withdraw militarily from a lot of the world.
It would lead to a change to the world order and leave a vacuum that China would fill and that is something that we have to be okay with.
I don’t see it really as good or bad… just different.
It certainly wouldn’t lead to a safer world… it could possibly lead to a more cruel and dangerous world.
It would however let the inevitable happen on a much shorter timescale.
except China and Russia
such a dire prognosis.
It may be just the opposite, a vibrant economy at home, less competition in technology, smaller trade surpluses for China.
more importantly a clear choice of liberty versus totalitarianism,
wars have been constant in human history, now it is just Americans fighting them instead of the rest of the world.
perhaps self determination would be more peaceful. Or a Chinese Empire that would weaken them.
in spite of the world changing the founders were sage, they chose liberty as the primary objective and did not want to be entangled in foreign wars.
Russia doesn’t have global financial or cultural domination and outside of nuclear weapons they have no means to rapidly project military power.
China would be the real challenger to US hegemony.
The sad thing is that I see the US becoming more like China than China becoming more like the US. Especially in the surveillance state… And… we will happily go there without any resistance.
Yep. That is why I don’t get down with Founding Father worship. Yes… they were really smart guys but they were living in a frontier backwater not a global superpower.
There is an advantage to a nation being able to project both soft and hard power.
Also, the trade surplus argument is kind of dumb. We get cheap goods and they get money. That means that we have more money to spend on other goods.
And yes… we are heading towards a surveillance state… we will just put our American spin on it and privatize it.
AS you are a Nobel Lauriat I appreciate your indulgence in this thread. As an economist you know many people look at the same data and draw different conclusions. You are entitled to yours and I mine.
I illustrated some of the technological changes from 1790 to 2018, which includes the period 1920-1940.
I illustrated that your reference to changes at the time of our founding did not apply to 1920 - 1940 when transit, radio and telephones existed. Yet there remained an isolationist strain that resisted entering WW2.
True enough, but the trade was predominantly arranged between the Colony and Client Nation and only involved non-perishable goods (except perhaps slaves, of course). The Colonies did not trade with India or Japan.
The British served a trade hub for the colonies at the time of our founding. Yet between the Virginia Company and 1914 much had changed. Yet in 1914 there was no support to go to War In Europe, we were an isolationist nation by culture. This strain lasted until Pearl harbor and subsequent the war when Eisenhower became the nominee. Where does that cultural strain exist today other than Rand Paul. Your analogies are not intellectually honest.
Not after 1783, it wasn’t
Louisiana Purchase was 1803, We also paid Mexico 15 million dollars for land annexed in the war. Hardly an imperial practice.
Ya got me there. Kenyans don’t have nukes. I never said they did. They have computers and Worldwide Internet access that threaten us, though.
Now, Russians, Chinese, Indians, Pakistani’s, and North Koreans DO have missiles and nukes._
My reference to Kenya was to dissuade you from talking about a threatening world when we are the major threat. Our Military does not protect us from terrorists at home or from cyber attacks. Threats have always existed but all of our officials are sworn to uphold the Constitution and we do not.
But we DO rely on oil. Why would I comment on things that didn’t happen?
Alternate circumstances provide alternate paths, You are saying the world has changed and that caused behavioral change. I say that behavioral change limited the options available. You do believe that technology is dynamic not static in nature.
Interestingly, Jefferson’s attack on the Tripoli Pirates was done in order to further more free and open International Trade, which the Pirates were interfering with by attacking and ransoming trading vessels. A very Non-Isolationist action.
And there were tariffs on trade which is nationalistic. America always stood for trade as Jefferson was quoted for resisting entangling alliances. He spoke of trade alliances not military alliances. You had argued trade was difficult, I state it was commonplace for the colonists to buy tobacco tools from Britain and sell the British tobacco,
Another poster had stated that the Us was always expansionist, for instance the homestead act, That was different in all facets from invading armies and occupation.
The world is vastly different now than in 1789 (or 1920, or 1940, or 2001, for that matter). The same rules don’t work well, anymore.
It is principles not rules we are talking about. It is a common theme that great thinkers are outdated. For instance Keynesianism is outdated and Marxism. But is democracy, a free press, liberty, and religion outdated. Change is a constant in History, Gun powder, steel, armor, rifles, have all changed the world. The black plague was biological warfare as well. Always technology changed the balance of power, Change is a liberal excuse to take away liberty. Good rules are timeless.
Thank you for your time professor.
yes, American companies build products overseas and sell them to us here, Labor is not a big part of an iPhone. but taxes are.
Good to know you are a free trader, you are becoming more of a Republican every day.
There is an advantage to a nation not having to project power.
and now you admit Obama surveilled Trump.
are you feeling well?
You know… every time I think I might have a rational discussion with you i always get proven wrong.
That is a shame because this could have actually been interesting.
Shame.
This is a rational discussion, it is just you are taking opposite positions so I am joking a little, relax and just smile.
you have to admit this is a republican talking point from 1990.
Also, the trade surplus argument is kind of dumb. We get cheap goods and they get money. That means that we have more money to spend on other goods.
Yeah. In 1990 I was a Republican.
Go figure.
You see not everything is a black/White political dichotomy.
When that is understood and accepted then maybe we could have a rational discussion.
And I don’t mean just you…but a lot of people out there.
and this thread points out the dichotomy.
we are not supposed to be a global power, we are here to preserve liberty at home, not to impose it abroad.
the left and the right are both leaching of us as a people.
What we are “supposed” to be has little to do with what the reality of the global order actually is.
I am “supposed” to be a billionaire…
I would think you would congratulate a conservative for identifying that being a hegemon is not in line with the founders thinking. I addressed this with Krugman.
what we are supposed to be is documented. It is not a global power or a redistribution center. The left and right are both wrong.
And as I said before. The founders were very smart men but they were operating a government for a frontier backwater, not a global hegemon that puts robots on Mars.
That egg cannot be unscrambled very easily.
How far does the pull back of global hegemony go? If we are unwilling to provide global security does that mean that our status of having the world reserve currency goes away?
And if it does… what does that look like?
I am not in disagreement that we have way too many foreign entanglements, I am just not going to lie to myself that getting out of those entanglements will be consequence free.
But you sound like him and reason like him. So you are a virtual Nobel Lauriat. Yet still wrong in cause, effect and correlation.
as you know in 1913 the fed was created, Senators became subject to the popular vote, and the income was seen to be legal.
The founders had not created the means to easily finance large government and Internationalism. This goes to the tectonic shift of progressivism and internationalism that occurred in 1913. They then had to conquer notions of Rugged individualism and isolationism that was inherent in people that left their homelands.
This was achieved after WW2 in a methodical way.
Interconnectedness does not command Internationalism. Internationalism tilled the soil for interconnectivity.
