America's Bid For Global Dominance

[Kramerman]

A lot of our corporations have production facilities there. They don't have to pay any taxes on their profits in Puerto Rico, and can import products to the US duty free, since it's part of the US, while still paying 3rd world wages.

This is true, it is for pharmaceutical and chemical companies in particular, i believe. Its a loop hole that, through special intrest groups and such these companies were able to work this into some completely unrelated act and since then have been exploiting it.

Kman

[Az]

so, Che, basically, puerto rico is a burden on the american taxpayer? What a silly, silly, situation.

[chequita guevara]

Yes, but we have lots of burdens. Almost the entire South and Western states (except the Pacific states) are burdens on the American tax payers. The North and NorthEast pretty much subsidizes the rest of the country. What is most ironic about this is that it is the North and NorthEast which most favor this situation and the South and West which are most opposed to it politically (though they don't mind the pork coming home).

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Azazel
so, Che, basically, puerto rico is a burden on the american taxpayer? What a silly, silly, situation.

If you read your Lenin (Imperialism: the highest state of capitalism), you'd see that this phenomenon was noticed 100 years ago by Hobson. He found that empire always costs more than is returned in economic benefits. What he missed, and Lenin picked up on, was that tose benefits tend to go to the capitalist class. In otherwards, empire is a working class subsidy to the wealthy.

This is why direct empire is inefficient. Neocolonialism is much more efficient in a cost-benefit ratio. You get the neo-colony (say, Saudi Arabia) to pay the costs of government while the imperialists continue to reap the profit. You don't have to deal with those pesky colonial wars either (or at least not as often) which tend to destabilize things.

Puerto Rico, however, is also a major military base, which is used to project American power into the rest of Latin America (and is even more important with the surrender of the Panama Canal).

[Az]

I know this. But why the political positions on this?

[Shi Huangdi]

For all of the leftist conspiracy lets see what Bush has already done in terms of agressive actions:

- Toppled the Taliban and replaced it with Karzai. We had a just causus belli in this case, the Taliban was harboring Bin Laden

- Threatened Iraq. This however has only be done through getting international support and working through the United Nations.

Wake me when we are actually spreading our flag around the world a la Britain.

[monkspider]

Great article Che, very insightful.

[Az]

ugh. haven't read your last post, che. that was an x-post back there.

I mostly agree. Actually, the interesting thing is that those conditions could lead, and actually are leading in many parts of the world (Russia) to the start of pulling apart of the city and the rural areas. Some even claim that in the not-so-distant future, countries that will have extreme differences in life qualities could actually be pulled apart by city-ruralare diffrences, and could reinstate the city-state as a more viable political entity.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Some people like to pretend we're better than all that. Empire, up until very recently, was a very dirty word here.

All Great Powers aspire to be a global hegemon, even the USSR. I don't know why you are shocked by that.

[Az]

noone is shocked, Dino. however, I don't think that all states aspire to be global hegemon. Take a look at the EU for example. I have never seen so much unwillingness to do anything in the geo-political sense.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Azazel
however, I don't think that all states aspire to be global hegemon. Take a look at the EU for example

The EU isn't a State. Why should I look to it as an example?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Then look at Sweden and Finland... though they are populated by weak-kneed wussy types .

It's a weakness of the Hegemonic Stability Theory, the hegemon, is going to do all sorts of nasty things to stay on top. He might be interested in instability in certain areas.

[Az]

to quote Roland: "this depends on your definition of "state"..."

[DinoDoc]

What did the article say anyway? I haven't read it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't think anyone read it .