Isn't the primary reason the US is rich due to being located far from the battlefields in WW1&2, and after each of these wars an influx of immigration out of Europe into the newly stimulated American industrial economy? We've essentially been riding the demographic wave up the hill since, and yet few in govt/media seem to really take this into account when planning for long-term spending and economic projections. Something has to give eventually, the question is when this long-run day of reckoning will finally come- although to quote Keynes (IMO the only thing he's been proven right about thus far), in the long run, we're all dead.
That's been important, but it's not the only factor. Yes, intactness of American industry after WWI&II was key. It certainly gave the US a big leg up in post-war industry and rebuilding. Imigration was a huge driver of the economy when it came primarily from Europe, and professionals were over-represented. Demographics can't be ignored, but neither can they tell the whole picture.
I'm not trying to insinuate that the US is rich only because it has invaded countries and overthrown governments when doing so suited its economic interests, only that that behaviour has played a large role in its success. As such, the commonly-held libertarian view that an end to military adventurism will be a boon for the US economy strikes me as naive. I still think it's the right thing to do, but I don't argue for it on economic grounds.
As such, the commonly-held libertarian view that an end to military adventurism will be a boon for the US economy strikes me as naive.
Driving economic activity by having the military act as a major consumer is really just running on a treadmill. We need to find an outlet which will lead to increases in economic activity. There is a huge investment hurdle involved, but space exploration and colonization could fit the bill. Once there is a significant human presence in space beyond low earth orbit, there will be tremendous economic growth. The major problem is that hundreds of billions of dollars of investment would be required to jump start it.
>Driving economic activity by having the military act as a major consumer is really just running on a treadmill.
I think you're missing my point. It's not that military spending drives manufacturing, service, and R&D industries (although it does), it's that direct military action has often been, and is often used to promote US economic interests. See the military's actions in Latin America in support of United Fruit, military support of right-wing (pro-US and pro-business) dictators everywhere, or the military-political interventions in the Middle East in support of energy interests.
My contention is not simply that making tanks is an economic activity that many people benefit from, but that those tanks are used to assert and defend economic dominance, which has a massive spillover effect for other industries.
that those tanks are used to assert and defend economic dominance
And the need for the assertion of force to defend economic dominance in turn cements the need for the military machine and perpetuates the military-industrial complex. We are essentially in agreement. I think it would be better for the US to concentrate on economic dominance through sheer commercial and industrial awesomeness combined with forward-thinking research and exploration.
In that, we are in perctect agreement. With leadership and sane economic policy, the US could still be an economic juggernaut without the need for a military that could take out any two nations on earth simultaneously. It can still be by far the most powerful, without needing to cost as much as the next 8 combined.
While I'm an avid supporter of space exploration, it is not the cure for our economic stagnation. Much better are infrastructure improvements: replacing aging bridges, high speed rail, high speed communications, electrical transmission lines. Better to support solar, wind and nuclear energy than to wage wars in the middle east.
A concerted national effort on removing our dependence on foreign energy resources would be a beneficial way to target our resources for the next 30 years or so.
You missed my point. Sure, space exploration won't cure our economic stagnation in the 1 to 30 years time frame. But it will decide if we are a first, second, or third-rate power in the next 100 years.
The US demographic wave hasn't stopped; that's why, from at least a European long-term investor perspective, the US is still a good bet compared to countries that have already peaked: Italy, Japan etc.
There are many paths to wealth. Germany is rich because of - in part - the almost total rebuilding of a ruined nation and the creation of a pretty effective post-war consensus in West Germany. In fact, I'd argue that an important part of the US's success were also an effective post-war consensus (different, but also hugely effective).
