In reality, there is no country with which we can fairly compare US tax rates.
Although the existence of the US military probably helps. As long as they don't do anything.
I'm undecided on this one.
But the US has one of the largest all-volunteer armies in the world, with some of the most advanced technology, so it makes sense that it costs more. My comment is not a justification for America's military power, it is simply an observation that American tax payers pay for something the rest of the world gets to enjoy for free -- the threat that if another country attempts to upset the balance of power from which many countries profit (namely many of those in Western Europe), the United States (and only or mainly the United States) will stage an intervention.
For example, regardless of Norway's foreign policy, they benefit from American warfare (or threat of warfare) in the middle east which ultimately does lower the supply of oil. Same with Saudi Arabia. None of these countries contribute, which is why it makes sense that the american tax payer pays more.
I mean the American ethical stance, as demonstrated numerous times by various popular votes, is also against war. However, that does not change the fact that countries benefit from it. Ultimately, while perhaps making some countries hypocritical, none of what you said changes the argument I put forth: namely that, by virtue of being the only country whose citizens are forced to pay for the status quo (which has the effect of subsidizing the economies of many of the countries to which the article attempts to compare the united states), there is no way to properly compare US tax policy to any other country.
> Partially yea, it may be that using the word "security" in that first post was a wording error that caused a bunch of people to misunderstand you
Indeed. For some reason, many people define security as not just security of the status quo but also some cosmic fight between good and evil.
Both countries do not benefit from it, otherwise they would view these wars as just and support them. The political machines in both countries support these wars and force the populace into them - in part (in the US at least) by being a two party system without any way to politically express a desire to not go to war, one party is more hawkish but both parties are full of hawks.
As an American I am happy to say, "Please, America, stop messing up the world for everyone with your endless economic wars." A bully cannot neutrally justify their own actions, they are biased in approving of the path they have chosen.
So the claim is that it is only possible to benefit monetarily from things that are ethically sound?
Not so long ago it was nice to have a couple of tank divisions located in West Germany doing nothing. Doing nothing. Just looking at their Soviet colleagues stationed across the border.
Also, bear in mind that a good chunk of that money just gets cycled into politicians via the DOD -> defense contractors -> lobbying.
You do have half a point, though, because the lobbying leads Congress to fund projects that, if one were trying to efficiently run a military, one would not fund.
How much better off would the world be if the US military had been too poorly funded to invade Iraq?
We are just a Mafia.
So as a counter to that, and dialing my language back to patton-y style, America is going around stirring up shit that the rest of the world needs to shovel. Why is it that after Syria and ISIS have emerged and created a refugee crisis the US is miraculously missing (on a per-GDP basis) in the aide efforts. While America is fueling economic growth beyond the ability for the earth to sustain it why has it refused to help people fleeing desertification in Africa. Oh, the situation in El Salvador, yea... America never did anything to turn central and south america into a dumpster fire...
America is the vampire, trying to suck all the resources and productivity into a machine that feeds itself - with little regard for the rest of the world.
Oh wait, that was too reductionist... maybe the US does a lot of good by sending food aide around the world but also causes problems... maybe the rest of the world is the same, being good sometimes and bad others, and no one nation is some beacon of light and purity that all others are constantly sucking[1] the productivity out of.
[1] The analogies used above were pretty weird and awkward,
I never claimed America was a beacon of light. I merely claimed that many non-American countries benefit from American global hegemony. That is an observation (which perhaps you think is wrong, but I don't see any generalized counter claim), not a value judgement.
> [1] The analogies used above were pretty weird and awkward,
Perhaps, but that doesn't take away anything from the main argument.....
Yes, the issue at hand isn't whether the US provides a net benefit to every country, because 'every country' is rarely used as a metric against which to measure the US. Instead, America is typically measured against western European countries and 'developed' countries (so, ex-colonies, essentially). The article in question in this HN thread compares the US to Europe.
Pretty much every 'developed' country benefits from US hegemony. That is one reason why they are considered 'developed'.
How many times do I have to say that I am in no way justifying American military action or even saying it's a good and ethical thing. I am just making a very obvious observation that American tax payers pay for the current Pax Americana (evil or not) that many countries often contrasted with the US benefit greatly from.
>Individual US tax payers pay for most of the world's security.
>Pretty much every 'developed' country benefits from US hegemony.
The former is outright wrong. I'm not convinced the latter is correct either, but at least we're getting closer.
How would the USSR have evolved without the US security presence in Europe since WWII?
How would China have evolved without the US deep-water navel presence in the Pacific? Without the US support for Taiwan?
How do you value the success of South Korea in the presence of US troops?
What would have happened in the Middle East if the the US hadn't supported Israel or pushed back on Saddam Hussein in Iraq?
I'm not trying to justify any or all US actions, just trying to point out that any evaluation of the US military's impact over the last 100 years is going to be more complex than suggested by your comment.
And the US is definitely not getting it's money's worth it if the goal is world security.
Correct, further supporting my claim that there is no other country that can be properly compared to the United States, since no other country has corresponding military might and it is unclear how to value such a thing fairly.
A country's defense expenses are for its own benefit providing easy global market access for its companies, leverage, favorable terms and markets for arms for its own defense industry. All these benefit the US and its citizens.
There is a well documented history of military intervention under pretexts driven by business interests going back centuries with the latest being Venezuela. A country is being openly destabilized, millions will suffer, there will be increased immigration leading to more right wing extremism against immigrants, and more business opportunities for US companies with access to the largest deposits of oil in the world. How does this help global security, this seems to transparently benefit US interests at the cost of everyone else. [1]
"They have pillaged the world: when the land has nothing left for men who ravage everything, they scour the sea. If an enemy is rich, they are greedy, if he is poor, they crave glory. Neither East nor West can sate their appetite. They are the only people on earth to covet wealth and poverty with equal craving. They plunder, they butcher, they ravish, and call it by the lying name of 'empire'. They make a desolation and call it 'peace'."
Because, in general, maintaining the status quo (regardless of whether the status quo is good or bad) is good for perceptions of stability and security. Saying that American military might preserves the status quo of Western European / American global hegemony is not particularly controversial. Neither is pointing out that many many countries benefit from maintaining the status quo while contributing nothing to the force that maintains it.
This is not a justification of American military maneuvering, but simply an observation that many countries, individuals, and businesses benefit from it, while contributing nothing.
Your evil specter of big business is ultimately a distraction from the issue, because many non-American companies also got pretty good paychecks from American military involvement, despite them or their employees contributing anything to the United States's actions that gave them that money.
I'm unsure how an argument that attacks the ethics or morality of US action can at all counter an argument that US action maintains a status quo that benefits many people who do not pay for it.
Security from?
Also, do you know that, in exchange, the rest of the world accepts US dollars as reserve currency?
Euro can eventually become a good alternative, but it has to build some "credit history".
Security from currency instability via the use of the dollar as a reserve currency?