Thought this was an interesting analysis, though I think it needs to be taken with a bit of a grain of salt (I think it’s power is what is qualitatively describes rather than precise numbers, and I think the author might even agree with me).
I’m always on the lookout to see it quantified how much the average American benefits from imperialism. My guy says if the US was unable to exert hegemony, the US would experience at least what Russia experienced in the 90s. These numbers align with that; and this is only talking about dollar hegemony and not, for example, the US using military pressure, sanctions, or other methods for extracting cheaper resources and goods from the global south.
That said, I’m not sure you can just run a regression and get your answer. I don’t see how you can isolate the US losing dollar hegemony without it then creating an uncountable number of secondary effects. All this stuff is deeply interconnected. But that said, I think this does a good job of highlighted at least in a qualitative sense just how much Americans benefit from dollar hegemony, and how losing that would be huge problem for the US economy.
I’m always on the lookout to see it quantified how much the average American benefits from imperialism.
And half of them still live from paycheck to paycheck.
The best economic system amen
But we got McDolans and Kurgerbing
The conditions necessary for the USA to lose dollar hegemony would themselves lead to massive shocks, or be the result of massive shocks. There is a lot of inertia in doing things the same way only because we have been doing them that way.
It is an interesting point.
It depends on how quick the shock is. If America plans around and mobilizes domestic resources then it would be able to arrest some of that decline.
But the American political class right now appears to be allergic to any state lead central planning.
Would it be just a loss of fancy treats? Living standards and incomes aren’t completely correlated. Cuba has excellent Healthcare but low income. US has meh healthcare for a country that “Rich” but there is also medical debt.
What really fucked up Russia in the 90s was not just a shift from socialism but also how quickly it was done. It’s called shock therapy for a reason. China also saw higher than usual inflation during 90s with its own economic reforms but nothing like Russian hyperinflation.
Another question would be why would say China quickly stop sending goods to the US when such a sudden shock would fuck up China too.
I think the dollar would face a slow decline over decades with countries wanting to trade in other currencies. But does for example China want Yuan to replace the dollar?
If it just fell to the current trend line it would fall over 50%.
That money is stolen by middle men and scammers anyway i never see it, if us hegemony was gone and we had a rational economy would i really notice the money?
Yes. Because in short consumer price inflation is like a novel thing for the american population, whereas it’s the ever normal in the global south. Of course the capitalist class makes the most of the USD hegemony, but there’s a certain panem et circenses policy where the US can just subsidize gas, energy and food costs to no impact to it’s financial credibility. The US government could do the same with health care and education, it just chooses not to.
In a way since you live in the core of the imperial core you remain an exploited worker, but there are extra layers of exploitation elsewhere. That’s why people can go live in your country, get paid less than the legal wage, and still send remittances home.
all of these costs are absolutely dwarfed by the medical, legal, rent, and debt expenses americans pay, I don’t really get why discussion like this is happening in the context of average income figures?? in a country with such extreme inequality
I also have to pay rent, a health plan, education fees, numerous taxes and so on but if you convert my costs to dollars they’ll seem like a pittance to you. Moreover, inflation in education and healthcare are something that exploded in the last generation. Nobody is disputing that, as a matter of policy, financialization lead to the american state deciding to exploit its population more and more.
The point is that not every benefit from USD hegemony has been taken from the workers. At least not yet. For one, since the US doesn’t have to actually pay for its imports every other administration can campaign on cutting taxes. Sure, you might say that most of those tax cuts go to the rich. Well, here in the global south we have to acquire dollars to pay our commitments, otherwise our credit rates and currencies collapse. Meaning that every administration has to raise taxes, primarily on the poor.
At the end of the day the question is: if USD hegemony goes away, who’s going to pay for that shortfall? Will it be the elites, who spent the last 40 days reproducing themselves by creating new ways to financially exploit the population? Will it be the MIC? Or will it be workers via consumption tax hikes and the further privatization of social security? It would have to be a combination of all three and more, but we know who’s going to get the short end of that stick.
There’s a pretty specific subset of workers which I point to as being part of the labor artistocracy it’s less than 10% of the US population (military, tech workers on the high end, insurance, finance workers, lots and lots of people) but I can tell from the way this whole discussion is framed in this thread it will just go around in circles talking about how US homeless people technically are better off than in the periphery. I’m sure that’s true, but it doesn’t bring us any closer to analyzing how the labor aristocracy has contracted and which part of the population still gets to take a small cut of these industries that collect global monopoly rents.
talking about how US homeless people technically are better off than in the periphery. I’m sure that’s true
You shouldn’t be because that’s an absurd statement.
The point is that the rent-paying barista in the US is better off than the rent-paying barista in Bolívia because they simply have more purchasing power by virtue of, among other things, USD hegemony. Likewise, whereas the overexploited farm worker in the US is paid enough of a pittance where they can still send remittances home, in Brazil you’ll find actual slaves here and there.
The american could be even better off, but that would require a political process for investment in public services, which happened elsewhere in the wealthy world and generally not in the post-80s US. Part of the reason why this struggle could never get off the ground is because the US government just didn’t have to fund itself. It didn’t have to think in terms of industrial and fiscal policy, or in terms of rising incomes. The world subsidized the american population’s balance of payments and some small crumbs made it to the base, enough at least to pacify them. As such living standards can still decrease a lot in the United States if even the mildest forms of redistribution aren’t enacted.
Unlimited genocide on the first world
