Americans, would you rather be a superpower?

In My Humble Opinion
21

Is it possible that there’s a price to pay either way?

As a superpower, we get to control (or at least play a big part in) much of the world’s politics, economics, and flow of information. Through diplomatic and military bullying, we can profit from almost any situation in the world, even ones that might be considered immoral, because there aren’t many entities that can keep us in check. By exploiting the weak and the poor, we and our friends can afford our high standards of living. I’d be lying if I said I didn’t like that – even though it may not be the right or “benevolent” thing to do, what it comes down to is that I’d rather be a middle-class American than a Chinese peasant or a starving African.

Of course, the more we do this, the more the rest of the world dislikes us. At the minimum, we pay for it in taxes and defense costs. At worst, we pay for it in blood.

Would I rather be living in a country with non-superpower status but a similar standard of living, like Canada? I don’t think so. Here’s my reason: I think Canada – and perhaps Australia and the E.U., to a lesser extent – are living in a rather precarious situation. The dominant superpower (us) considers them culturally and economically similar enough to be treated as friends, and as such, we’re glad to engage in mutually beneficial interactions with them and we do what we can to protect our shared interests. But if either situation ever changes – if America loses its dominance or if those nations come to be regarded as “unfriendly” due to political/cultural/economical/environmental changes on either side – that fortunate status would also be in question. Basically, it seems to me that they’re relying on a powerful friend, but that has friendship has to be paid for with forced allegiance (they can’t be too different from us, they can’t disagree with us too much, and they certainly can’t directly oppose us) and a lack of freedom (what happens to us will affect them too, but they don’t have as much control over it as we do).

And that’s the thing. As a technological/economic/militaristic superpower, we’re in possession of a rather rare gift: Control over our own destiny. We’re not (as) subject to the whims of other nations and we can decide what we want for ourselves. The neat thing about this country is that it is, theoretically at least, controlled by its citizens both within (via its democratic/republican government) and without (via its superpower status). Very few nations have had this privilege in the past (I think Athens/Greece and Rome, to an extent, were two of them); and certainly none have had the same level of influence we do thanks to the current states of technology and media.

Wow. Doesn’t this mean that, I, as Joe Citizen, can actually play a part – however minute – in the shaping of my world?

Well… no, probably not :smiley: I’m not THAT naive. But, hey, you know… even being able to dream that is quite a significant gift. So many people, historically speaking, have been oppressed by their government/their Emperor/their Lords/their neighbors/their enemies/their Church. But not us. For however short a period of time, we’re the ones in control. We’re so lucky to have the freedom that we do (or that we imagine we do, at least). I only hope that 1) it’ll last and that 2) we’ll learn to use it responsibly. We’re still a young nation, and from the looks of it, it seems that where we end up 50 years from now will be dependent mostly on our own actions. In other words… the power to control my own life? I don’t think I’d give that up for anything. But then again, I’m still young. What do I know :confused:

22

That would make sense if the primary cost of pharm companies were manufacture and distribution. But it’s not, so it doesn’t. If the r&d costs are paid for by exhorbitant U.S. prices, it costs the pharm companies not much to turn around and sell them to other markets with enforced price controls (e.g. Europe)

Obviously this isn’t a direct result of being a superpower per se. It’s just a general gripe about how American’s are so caught up in either jingoistic breast-beating or apologizing for being a bully that they don’t see the economics or the power relationships for what they are.

23

The problem with being the world’s superpower is that there is no safe exit strategy. The minute we are no longer a superpower, every enemy we made being a superpower is going to come after us. I’d love for us to be able to concentrate our great wealth on making life better for our people instead of the military-industrial complex, but we’re essentially holding a snake and can’t let go.

24

[QUOTE=uglybeech]
OK, that makes sense, but I don’t buy it. There has been a lot of legitimate criticism against the U.S., but the number one complaint I’ve heard (from Europeans at least) is that the U.S. had no right to invade a sovereign nation unilaterally. Or variants on that theme.[\QUOTE]
That doesn’t sound the same as “we wish Saddam Hussein were still around” to me. For instance, someone might be happy Saddam is out of power, but unhappy with the precedent it sets to have the U.S. unilatterally invade a sovereign nation.

25

Going to come after us? What the heck are you talking about? Who is going to come after us? The Communists? If we were to declare tomorrow that we are going to cut the defense budget by 90% and leave everyone alone, nobody would come after us. What would happen is that every mid-level regional power would try to establish hegemony in its region (Iran, China, etc.) and focus its efforts there. Al-Qaeda wouldn’t start coming after us, they’d declare victory over The Great Satan and turn their attention to destabilizing the Middle East and Central Asia to try and grab some power.

26

Well, I didn’t mean invade us specifically, but more of a death by a thousand cuts. Like you said, a lot of places would destabilize, and also our interests abroad would be curtailed severely. In a global economy, that’s nearly tantamount to an invasion.

27

I can appreciate this, 80% of our trade is with the USA and that is way too much. I like you guys just fine, but as the saying goes here “If America sneezes, Canada catches a cold.” There is always the fear here that whenever the American economy goes into recession, so will we. And special interest groups like your lumber industry or ranchers can cause much economic distress for us.

28

I don’t think that’s true. Most places would still find it in their best interest to trade with us and allow our businesses to invest in their economies. Regional destabilization would hurt us, of course, but it wouldn’t be targetted at us, it would hurt everyone. The places where we do the most business (Europe, China, Japan, North America) wouldn’t be very eager to shut us down so I don’t think it would really affect anyone that much. The Middle East, Venezuela, etc. wouldn’t stop selling us oil because they like making money more than they would like hurting us. The US is still a massive market, so nationalizing or freezing out our companies would come with us doing the same to that country so you likely wouldn’t see too much of that - maybe a few mines or gas fields in some third world countries, but that’s about it.

29

You’re dodging the question; what do you mean by “most dopers aren’t normal Americans BTW. Only myself and a few others here hold the torch”?

30

As other posters have pointed out, it costs quite a bit to be the superpower. Our trillions of dollars of debt are currently owned by several foreign interests, notably China. When the day comes that China is ready to confront the U.S. directly and is prepared to deal with the disruption to the global economy, calling in that debt is going to be one of their primary weapons. Forgive the pun, but the U.S. is living on borrowed time.

31

It doesn’t change a thing. Research and development costs are just that : costs. Like production, like promotion and advertisment (which is also a signifiant part of expenses for pharma companies). They’re paid for by the very same sales that pay for production or distribution. Sales in the USA at a higher price, sales in Europe at a lower price, sales of patents for producing low-cost copies in develloping countries, etc…
In case it wouldn’t be clear : let’s assume the cost of producing a drug (r&d included) is 50$/pill. In the USA, the company can sell it for 75$ and in France for 60$. The pill will be produced and sold in both countries because there’s a profit to make. If the USA decide to regulate the price and bring it down to 60$ too, the pill will still be sold in the USA. If France decides to bring down the price to 40$ it won’t be sold in France at a loss.

Now, you’re going to tell me that the 15 extra dollars made in the USA will be invested in r&d and that it will eventually be beneficial for both the americans (who paid the 15$) and french (who freeloaded). But it isn’t true. First, a significant part of this 15$ won’t go to r&d but to other expenses like promotion (and moreso in the USA than in France where direct advertisment is forbidden for most drugs).

But what about the extra, say 3$, which will eventually be used for r&d? Actually, they won’t change a thing. Either the pharma company expects to make a profit and will invest in r&d whether or not they get these 3$ (by raising money from investors, for instance) or they don’t expect to make a profit and they won’t spend it in r&d (but rather create a industrial chemicals division or distribute dividends to stockholders).

To sum up, when you buy a drug at a higher cost, you’re not “subsidizing” consumption of drugs in other countries, but simply “subsidizing” a particular company (that can as well be a foreign company), giving it extra money that can be used in whatever way the company sees fit.
The issue with regulating the price of drugs isn’t that someone is paying for someone else’s drug (since, as I explained above, a profitable investment will be made, and a non-profitable investment won’t be made whether or not someone is willing to add an extra $15 to the deal). But that if the selling price is expected to be too low for the drug to be profitable, it won’t be produced at all. Normally, this is regulated by the market. If people deem something not to be worth its production price (once again, including all expenses, like r&d), it won’t be produced, that’s all.

But drugs have a peculiarity. They are often necessary. Basically, the price a “customer” would be willing to pay for a life-saving drug is everything he owns. This put pharma companies in a very strong position of power. For instance, the company could decide to sell its pill that costs 50$ to be produced (and that it has patended) for 100 000 $, and would still find buyers, and probably a lot of people not able to pay this price would insist on the government footing the bill (and the government would probably cave in, since refusing to pay for saving a baby’s life wouldn’t past muster). So, price regulation has to enter in the equation, in order to both not allow a company to “blackmail” its “customers” into paying unreasonnable prices and to still provide an incentive to pharma companies so that drugs will actually be develloped and produced.

As a result, the market for drugs is strongly segmented by country (ideally, for a company, the segmentation would be on an individual basis, if it were possible. You’re rich or very ill and want my drug? It’s 50 000$. You’re poor or only slightly ill and you want my drug? It’s 500$). Prices have less to do with actual costs (be it r&d costs or others) than with what a country’s population is able and willing to pay, and the influence (or lack thereof) a pharma company (or the pharma industry in general) has in the process (lobbying power, PR, etc…). Of course this isn’t true for instance for generic drugs, since an actual concurrence exists, and less true for “comfort” drugs (since a person doesn’t absolutely needs them) but it still makes the pharma industry and the drugs market very peculiar. Quite often it’s a deal (formalized or not) between a monopoly (the company owning the patent for a particular medecine) and a monopsone (the country where it is sold and paid for with public money for the most part, even in the USA) and free market principles just don’t apply.

The only case when you’re actually subsidizing anything is when public money is spent directly in r&d, which generally means when there isn’t a good expectation of profit, at least in a reasonnably short term.
In case it would be what you’ve in mind, American pharma companies very roughly have half of the world’s market share, and the USA market is very roughly half the pharma’s world market, so american consumers are probably using roughly as much “foreign” drugs as foreign consumers are using “american” drugs. The USA isn’t providing the rest of the world with drugs, either.
In any case, this has nothing to do with the USA being a superpower and it’s only a matter of policies. Being a superpower doesn’t make drugs more costly in the USA.

32

We’ve had a lot of threads on this. It’s simply a myth, largely perpetrated by the drug companies. American pharmaceutical prices are whatever the market will bear, just like any other product. Foreign drug prices don’t affect American prices. Indirect costs don’t generally affect pricing - R&D costs are an indirect cost, and whether or not the market-clearing price will recup the indirect costs is a separate issue.

33

Now you made me channel Foghorn Leghorn directly.

“That’s a joke… I say, that’s a joke, son”.

34

  1. I like the secure feeling of being an American.

  2. I don’t like paying for world cop activity.

  3. I must get benefits from our ability to promote our own interests and don’t know if they overwhelm #2 or not.

  4. I like being in control and being able to elect a proper and responsible government.

  5. Whoa, I’m not in control, am I? I mean, look what we’re doing now!

  6. I guess I’d rather somebody less foolish than the present administration were the superpower, even if it meant the superpower wasn’t my country anymore.

  7. On balance, I think I prefer living in the superpower to not, but I’m not sure I have all the information to make an informed choice. When I visit Munich, life there sure seems nice.

>In case it wouldn’t be clear : let’s assume the cost of producing a drug (r&d included) is 50$/pill.

  1. Hey, this is a weird way of analyzing the situation. You’re confusing the marginal cost with the average cost. As a first step maybe you should figure it costs $100,000,000 plus $30/pill to be in the business of selling those pills. Not to defend the pharmaceutical companies, but paying off the R&D is in many businesses a pretty big deal.
35

Ironic last line there. Do you know how pharmaceutical research works? Single-payer countries (sort of like unimaginably large insurance companies) are able to negotiate lower prices for pharmaceuticals than the rest of us because of their large size. Thus when Western Europe purchases drugs, they do so at a discount. Even moreso in the Third World (in that case, though, it’s simply a matter of not being able to afford high prices). Because of that, Americans (and, ironically, the uninsured in particular) pay more - we’re subsidizing everyone else’s drug purchases.

It’s not a simple matter. I’m certainly not proposing that African countries should have to pay the same price as comparatively affluent Americans for anti-AIDS drugs. I don’t know an easy fix for this. But it’s certainly a matter of strict fact that Americans do subsidize drug purchases on behalf of the rest of the world, and it’s disproportionately the money paid by Americans that goes to fund further drug research. You seem to have dismissed this without even offering any reason why. Do you have some counterargument that you’re keeping in your backpocket? Because I’d be fascinated to hear it.

Basic misunderstanding of microeconomics here. They are able to make a profit selling drugs at any price higher than the marginal cost to produce them, which is indeed miniscule in most cases. However, the cost to develop new drugs is enormous; drug development would be vastly slowed - or else drug prices would increase for you guys - if Americans weren’t subsidizing your pharmaceutical purchases. It’s economically rational to sell a drug you’ve already developed at anything higher than the cost to manufacture individual pills - but it’s not economically rational to fund research into new drugs if e only making a small amount above the actual manufacturing cost when you sell them. Developing a new drug would then become a sure money-loser. Drug research couldn’t be funded if everyone paid for drugs the way Western Europe or the developing world do.

I hate to defend the drug companies here - God knows standing up for big corporations is not generally my habit - but this is a very complex matter and most of the people who rail about the drug companies don’t seem to understand even the most basic economic issues involved.

36

Being a sole superpower isn’t the problem; it’s being an irresponsible sole superpower that’s the problem.

(Don’t blame me, I vote for competent leaders)

37

Canada is a superpower wearing its glasses. One day it’s going to go into a phone booth, change into a skintight costume with a maple leaf on the front, and open a can of whoop ass on the unsuspecting world.

38

Folllowed by decades of Canadian backpackers carefully sewing little stars and stripes patches onto their bags. :smiley:

39

Sometimes I think it would be better to be someplace like Canada where we wouldn’t have to pay for our own defense, we can let someone else do it. But then I realize that I’d just feel guilty if that were the case.

And I don’t like the jealousy thing. Man people really take it personally when you do something better than them. Then they start blaming you and shit.

But all in all my first choice would be for the whole world to have democracies who would cooperate as democracies generally do - no wars, no famines - so the whole issue of superpower would be moot.

40

Yes, I’d rather be a citizen of a superpower than not, but it don’t come cheap. And it would be nice if we elected outstanding leaders every four years, without exception, but sometimes the voters goof - that’s just the risk you take with democracy. “The worst system, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time,” Churchill said. When the U.S. goofs, the whole world faces the consequences.

I don’t think my psyche would be damaged or my life would be measurably worse if we were a second-tier country in terms of global dominance, IF the new superpower were also a free, stable, market-oriented, pluralistic democracy. Right now, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Holland, Norway, Costa Rica and maybe Japan, Argentina or Chile are about the only other countries I’d trust to be responsible superpowers - and most of them have histories that give one pause (just as we do, I concede). I’d like to think that nations can learn and mature, just as people can.