Hacker News Reader

Comment by anm89 | Hacker News Reader

People in this thread seem to think it is some law of physics that the US gets to "allow" policies in other countries.

We "allow" policy and action by other sovereigns to the extent that we have the ability to enforce our will upon them. Just because we have had this ability to varying extents over the last 50 -70 years, does not mean we have the exact same capabilities right now.

US GDP is declining as a share of world GDP. US in no longer the biggest importer of commodities like we were for most of the time that we were "allowing" policies in other countries, and our international alliances are substantially more fractured then they were over most of that period.

The fact that the US has had an outlier position in terms of Geopolitical influence for the last half century is not a guarantee of this being true in the future.

View on HN

> The fact that the US has had an outlier position in terms of Geopolitical influence for the last half century is not a guarantee of this being true in the future.

In fact, we should absolutely look at this as a historical fluke. We were the only major world power that didn't have significant WWII battles in our own territory destroying our industrial infrastructure. From 1945 on, we were #1 primarily because most of the European and Asian powers had been destroyed by the war. That effect doesn't last forever.

The US does have a lot going for it. We have very ample natural resources, natural borders that are cheaper to enforce, and a large mostly culturally unified population. But that default presumption that US is #1 at all things is naturally fading as WWII recedes into the past.

(number 1 in a contest nobody still around even entered into, we look like a the kid parading their most improved award that they keep being the only person in the class to get every year)

The US uniquely has resources and market tolerance from the international community to steward those resources and be a nation with 21st century infrastructure, it just has no internal consensus to do it or how to do it

To add to this, don't forget that post WW2 the West agreed that the US would be the world police and that by having a singular super power wars would be less likely (since when countries have large militaries they want to justify them. Like... the US does)[0]. Thus allowing the US to create its military industrial complex, which has been highly profitable for it (a lot because of the cold war).

[0] This surprisingly panned out decently well, considering we haven't had a war between major countries in a long time.

The singular super power era started around 1990.

The 45 years before that the world had two super powers, fighting in various cold and hot wars.

I think you're missing the part where I specified The West. To clarify, that means European countries, America, and Canada. Yes, Russia was an opposing super power, but they were the super power of the East.

And to clarify more, there still is no singular super power. Russia is still a super power and China is a super power. We are still in a cold war, but things have changed dramatically in how it is being fought and with who.

I know in my country, Canada, a lot of the discussion around marijuana legalization involved how the US would react. Would the US retaliate with trade restrictions? border restrictions? etc. For a lot of the people I talked to, that was their only hang-up wrt marijuana.

We did eventually legalize it, but not until after some of your own states did.

> US GDP is declining as a share of world GDP.

That's pretty much because of china. Take china out of the equation and everything looks "normal".

> The fact that the US has had an outlier position in terms of Geopolitical influence for the last half century is not a guarantee of this being true in the future.

That's true. But we will be calling the shots in the western hemisphere for a very very long time. Monroe Doctrine was established 200 years ago. It's a safe bet that it'll be going strong in 2120. Maybe our influence in east asia will wane as china rises, but definitely not in the western hemisphere and europe. China's rise may even make our influence grow in europe, south america, etc. Who else do they have to turn to?

It all depends on how politics will play out in the next 20 years in the US. If you keep electing GWBs and Trumps intersped with some more progressive governments you will fall out of grace with most of the West, there is no way that nations trying to progress will keep being impeded by a volatile ally.

Trust has already been eroding since 9/11, it was accelerated under Trump, the next couple of decades might decide if the US can regain some influence or if it will be treated as a untrustworthy ally. It's been really hard to justify supporting the US lately.

Well, we still have the largest and deadliest army in the world (by orders of magnitude) and the US dollar is the world’s currency. So, while our diplomatic influence may have waned a bit, the US still exerts the lion’s share of hard and soft influence around the world.

I thought China had a larger army? https://www.brookings.edu/articles/chinas-hollow-military

China is significantly upscaling their army in terms of numbers, technology, and capability - and will be a real threat to the US in a decade if left unchecked. But for now, the US army has far greater destructive force and reach than China.

Dollar is not the currency where I live.

You may not use dollars locally but most international transactions are priced in US dollars, giving the US a tremendous amount of influence in the global financial markets.

The “world’s currency” description is valid in the sense that USD so far remains the main settlement currency in international trade (with China trying to replace it with RMB within its sphere of influence).

Also, a fun fact I just learned: apparently, the majority of dollars in paper form is held by people outside the US.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com