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.

  • CarmineCatboy2 [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    1·
    2 months ago

    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.

    • panned_cakes [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
      1·
      2 months ago

      I like how I have two mentions rn, one person calling the guy I’m posting a patsoc, and the other person telling me baristas are the labor aristocracy. yarly Migrant workers are also forced to live many persons to a house or rely on unstable living situations from employers who hold them hostage and don’t let them get a car (remember the infamous Jia Tolentino debacle where it turned out her parents were holding underpaid Filipino teachers hostage practically to fill No Child Left Behind quotas?) in order to circumvent the massive rents issue. American workers who don’t forgo basic needs and have to rely on minimum wage can’t start a family. I’m not saying there isn’t an immense privilege for many in being born in the US it’s just not as cut and dry as unequal exchange makes it out to be without accounting for debts and rents and other expenses from that lack of social services. There is a demarcation between workers who passively benefit from being in the US to reap the benefits of cheaper treats from the same people who make them indentured wage slaves, and those who are working at industries which can still collect on being at the top of the global value chain.

      I don’t know why you stop at homeless people considering they can spend they spare dollars further at the gas station as long as suppliers decide not to make bread cost $7.99 at the place they have access to