Instead of sending aid, the US could profit from global conflicts by becoming the primary manufacturer and seller of weapons. This approach would re-industrialize the nation, create high-paying jobs in the military-industrial complex, and generate revenue without direct military intervention or sending cash abroad.

Related Insights

From China's perspective, producing more than it needs and exporting at cutthroat prices is a strategic tool, not an economic problem. This form of industrial warfare is designed to weaken other nations' manufacturing bases, prioritizing geopolitical goals over profit.

Luckey argues that US foreign policy is shifting away from direct military intervention. The new, more effective strategy is to arm allies, turning them into "prickly porcupines" that are difficult to attack. This approach maintains US influence and economic benefits while avoiding the political and human cost of deploying troops.

In a world of aging, export-dependent economies like China and Korea, the U.S. is the only large, first-world nation that is a net consumer. This makes access to its market an incredibly powerful negotiating tactic, allowing the U.S. to leverage its consumer base as a tool of foreign policy.

The losers of WWII, Germany and Japan, paradoxically "won the peace." Their complete devastation forced a societal and industrial reset, funded by the US. This allowed hyper-modernization and rapid economic growth, while victorious but bankrupt Britain was stuck with aging infrastructure and financial burdens.

A law requiring the US military to source its clothing domestically provides a crucial, stable revenue stream for American factories. This allows them to stay afloat and produce consumer goods, especially in the technical outdoor gear sector, that would otherwise likely move overseas.

After WWII, the U.S. used its naval dominance to guarantee global trade. In exchange for writing its allies' security policies, it allowed open access to its market. This economic "unfairness" was the strategic cost of building a global coalition against the Soviet Union, effectively bribing nations into an alliance.

Despite what is described as "stupid" and "sclerotic" economic policies like tariffs and trade wars, the U.S. economy continues to grow. This resilience is not due to government strategy but to the relentless daily innovation of American businesses, which succeed in spite of, not because of, macro-level decisions.

US policy fetishizes a return to manufacturing, which employs 11% of the workforce. However, protectionist policies like tariffs actively harm the higher-margin, larger tourism industry, which employs 12%. This represents a sclerotic and irrational trade-off that damages a more valuable sector of the economy.

Anne Applebaum highlights a disturbing shift where high-stakes foreign policy, like the Ukraine peace plan, is conducted by businesspeople seeking personal financial gain. This mirrors the kleptocratic systems of autocratic states, prioritizing private profit over national or allied interests, and raises questions about who American foreign policy truly serves.

The recent uptick in global conflicts, from Ukraine to the Caribbean, is not a series of isolated events. It's a direct result of adversaries perceiving American weakness and acting on the historical principle that nations expand their influence until they are met with sufficient counter-force.