This is the great innovation of American Empire. Figuring out that there's more money in losing wars than winning them. Only America attacks other places to loot their own treasury. They spent an absolutely soulless $2.3 trillion destroying Afghanistan and didn't 'get' anything much in return. So what do you do when you're running a Ponzi and one scheme goes belly up? You have to get the sucker into a new con, quickly.
To cover up the loss of Afghanistan America invaded Iraq. When that went screwy they invaded Libya, then Syria. That wasn't enough so they went even bigger, provoking Russia by corrupting Ukraine. The Ponzi Empire leaves a trail of destruction wherever they go, but the jig is only up if they stop. So they never stop. This is a big reason America keeps starting war after war after war. They've got to keep the scam going. As Marohn says, “like any Ponzi scheme, as soon as the rate of growth slows, it all goes bad very quickly.” Which is the point we're getting to now. America is pushing up against countries like China, Russia, and Iran that it cannot actually intimidate like the innocent civilians and weddings it's used to bombing from afar. We have finally reached the end of this fatal Ponzi. The scams are getting closer and closer together and running into each other. People are beginning to see, and soon they'll start withdrawing their money.
So according to this, The US is about to start WW3 just to get paid and keep their investors money. Is that correct?
Theres an incentive for certain aspects of empire to endorse wars but in the last instance the only reason the military industrial complex exists is in order to support the war efforts of empire not the other way around. The US got a lot out of destroying iraq and libya and syria and Afghanistan in its efforts to gain control over SWANA and control the choke point between asia africa and europe as well as the constant capital in the soil.
The tendency for capitalism is to expand but just like the collapse of the roman empire, infinite expansion is not sustainable on a planet w a finite limit of resources.
Theres probably something else to be said as well about the second characteristic of imperialism which is that war destroys capital which creates room for more growth.
Read through it and think the ideas are fine but pointing to it as a ponzi scheme and not an inherent contradiction of capitalism makes it seem like theres some "long term thinking capitalism" solution that doesnt exist
yea this analysis reads like the typical liberal marvel brained analysis except they correctly recognize that "america bad" instead of "eastern hordes/terrorists bad"
This scheme only works when US isn't directly involved in the wars. So, I don't think starting WW3 is what they'd want. The idea is to have long running limited scale conflicts or a cold war where constant military spending can be justified.
This part stuck out to me:
So according to this, The US is about to start WW3 just to get paid and keep their investors money. Is that correct?
Theres an incentive for certain aspects of empire to endorse wars but in the last instance the only reason the military industrial complex exists is in order to support the war efforts of empire not the other way around. The US got a lot out of destroying iraq and libya and syria and Afghanistan in its efforts to gain control over SWANA and control the choke point between asia africa and europe as well as the constant capital in the soil.
The tendency for capitalism is to expand but just like the collapse of the roman empire, infinite expansion is not sustainable on a planet w a finite limit of resources.
Theres probably something else to be said as well about the second characteristic of imperialism which is that war destroys capital which creates room for more growth.
Read through it and think the ideas are fine but pointing to it as a ponzi scheme and not an inherent contradiction of capitalism makes it seem like theres some "long term thinking capitalism" solution that doesnt exist
yea this analysis reads like the typical liberal marvel brained analysis except they correctly recognize that "america bad" instead of "eastern hordes/terrorists bad"
Yeah reading the article i noticed a distinct lack of materialist thinking, and last three paragraphs really nailed it in.
This scheme only works when US isn't directly involved in the wars. So, I don't think starting WW3 is what they'd want. The idea is to have long running limited scale conflicts or a cold war where constant military spending can be justified.
You're right. Cold War 2.0 makes more sense than WW3, but you'd never know that by just going off of the Biden Administration's rhetoric.
For sure, mistakes happen and you get unintended consequences.
Why is gotta be endless sequels? Can't Hollywood make any new IP?
If I'm not mistaken, this is the reason Max Azzarello decided to self-immolate, to call attention to the massive Ponzi Scheme.