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 sorry, what?
I don’t.
Okay well you told me it was an absurd statement to depict homelessness in the imperial core as being easier than in the periphery using this logic, so feel free to tell me how I led myself astray or idk just write me off as a loon
Because you’re talking about homeless people. The discussion there isn’t about how much a worker is being exploited or the purchasing power of currency. It’s about wether the country has safety nets at all and how brutal the police is. Not to mention weather conditions.
At the risk of pissing you off by stating the obvious, you can have a job, exert the purchasing power of USD, and still be homeless in the USA
Now what do you think happens outside the USA?
In general peripheral countries experience official homelessness rates at least ten times higher than the United States.
Yep.
I’m not trying to distort the actual situation, it is just that the aforementioned divide 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 -that’s what helps determine where organizing is actually going to be effective. This is for instance why the tech or cybersecurity union isn’t going to do anything even if they took off but the service worker unions have been exploding.
Upper percentile workers in these industries have benefits coming directly from their employer (making them blase about universal healthcare), have enough money to be comfortable and can still drown everything out with consumption and isolation for them and any family they want, a retirement package that gives them the imaginary class position of being an investor, and their mortage gives them the imaginary class position of being a real estate magnate. I think it’s pretty easy to notice how people like this treat those in a real precarious positon more shittily even though they should have solidarity with their issues and they often have this hostile pride about working in labor aristocracy industries especially military that makes them take out all workplace issues on other people to avoid blaming the job. Buy into weird management cults like Amazon, that’s really stuff you’ve go to have a reason to buy into. Nobody doing catering there believes that shit. But get onto the higher end of tech workers and all kinds of marketing and other indecipherable positions, they start to. Company liquor cabinet is too open.
Here’s the thing, the labor aristocracy is global. The labor aristocrat can always just move to an anglo country and make many times what they’d make in the Global South or Europe. That’s what brain drain is all about. Which is why I never even mentioned them. What I compared are the conditions of service industry and farm workers, and how global financial policy alters their status.
When you add the labor aristocracy to the equation you have what can be considered an inflection point. The indentured servant in a large american city has to compete with the labor aristocrats for amenities - housing, services, and so on. The indentured servant in, say, Rio de Janeiro has to pay rent to live in a favela just so they have the opportunity to clean the a middle class house.
People struggle everywhere, especially people at the bottom of the rung. But there’s a real appreciable decline in US living standards due to deindustrialization and financialization. The only ones safe from that decline are capitalists, high value workers, capitalist family members, and the real estate gentry. Those all benefit from american fiscal policy and the USD. What we are saying is that’s only the tip of the iceberg if USD hegemony disappears and the US government actually starts having to pay its bills. It’s like in France. Revolutionary conditions arrived when hunger knocked on the doors of rural aristocrats, the lower clergy and even the tax paying bourgeois.