A good thing, since fair methods of competition is the single differentiating policy of the USA that put it into a dominant world position over the last 200+ years. See Why Nations Fail by Acemoglu and Robinson.
Actually the idea of modern India is mostly a product of the British, so in that aspect they are a young nation.
After world war 2, employment collapsed because of the downturn of the war economy.
From a realpolitik perspective, its a smart move. Using the marshall aid to get influence in europe, prevent your main competitor from gaining further foothold on the continent and also having market (which requires a near complete rebuildup) for your economy to divert to after the collapse of the war economy.
This singling out of Germany from Europe is Russian propaganda. The core message, as you obviously have learned, is "US is keeping Europe under its thumbs because it is afraid of losing its dominance." What they neglected to add was that this is also the position of many European elites, who do -not- want to go back to Europe before Pax Americana.
In fact, just as in US, so too in Europe and Asia, there is a division amongst the elite regarding the current global regime. It is clear why a loser like Russia would want this, but would say Japan or Taiwan, or France, or even Germany, want to go back to a world where 'balance of powers' and periodic 'big wars' are par per course?
As for US, that bill from Pentagon is not just for 'keeping America safe'. No. It is the price of the replacement of the British Empire and its maintenance of global finance and trade. That shit costs a lot of money. So if we decide to go "multi-polar", we no longer have to spend that much money - let the East Asians duke it out over who controls the island chains. US will remain a powerhouse in every way.
p.s.
re-read the above and the point is opaque. The 'cost' of living in the American era for other countries is possibility of having to sacrifice their national interest in the interest of the global order. US does this routinely btw (which gets a certain subset of Americans quite upset as you know) and so it's not just asking say Germany to give up cheap Russian oil. Remember us giving a whole chunk of our industrial base to China? That was not in our purely national interest but it was in the interest of having a peaceful global order. China had to be integrated.
So, this is my recommendation for all "multi-polar" fans. Reflect on this: WW3, if it happens, will happen post multi-polarity. Just like #1 and #2 followed the breakdown of Concert of Europe in 19th century.
There are no tunnels or fence-jumpers between Lancaster and Tolstoi.
- signed, a legal immigrant
Sapiens is pretty decent, though the first half is better than the second.
the remarkable thing is what a terrible, unlivable, ugly nation we built out of all that wealth. The Romans built imperial Rome, the French empire built Paris, the US government built... a beige car dependent urban sprawl.
Americans should be ashamed of themselves.
So I agree... BUT its survivor bias. A middle class American (say median income), would absolutely rather take suburban America in the most soulless subdevelopement over whatever a median income roman would live in.
The pretty things in Rome stayed 2000 years because people liked it. Think of everything that didn't make it. They also had hundreds of years more to build them than the US has had. The Empire State Building, much of DC, victorian homes in SF... there's plenty of lasting beauty in America. Many more cities with many more opportunities for lasting beauty. Just look at Boston, its a dynamic city with a mix of old and new... its an example of what the next Rome may look like 2000 years from now.
I think Bill Gates summarizes the theory's weakness well: https://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/Why-Nations-Fail