I wrote an essay exploring how the rise of American power in the 20th century was tied less to military dominance than to interest rate cycles and capital flows. It compares U.S. hegemony to the past Empire and then PT 2 asks what today’s tightening cycle might mean for America’s global role. Curious to hear whether others think markets, not wars, are the real foundations of empire.
palmfacehn · 4h ago
There's a synergy between debt based monetary policy and warfare. You could expand your very brief summary to include the Jekyll Island debacle, which presaged the US's entry into WWI.
>There is nothing a nation should avoid as much as owing money abroad… You are doubtless aware that some nations are very derious to loan money to weaker nations whereby they might establish their supremacy and exercise undue influence over them. They lend money to gain political power. They are ever seeking the opportunity loan. They would be glad, therefore, to see Japan and China, which are the only nations in Asia that are even partially free from foreign rule or dictation, at war with each other so that they might loan them on their own terms and dictate to them the internal policy which they should pursue.
>There is nothing a nation should avoid as much as owing money abroad… You are doubtless aware that some nations are very derious to loan money to weaker nations whereby they might establish their supremacy and exercise undue influence over them. They lend money to gain political power. They are ever seeking the opportunity loan. They would be glad, therefore, to see Japan and China, which are the only nations in Asia that are even partially free from foreign rule or dictation, at war with each other so that they might loan them on their own terms and dictate to them the internal policy which they should pursue.
https://www.econ.kyoto-u.ac.jp/BHSJ2018/pdf/E09Austin_Busine...