If you are saying that the US needs military dominance because we need to protect our own domestic production from invasion, that's something else. I still disagree but not as forcefully as I would to the other characterization.
(If an invader tried to invade America for the purpose of seizing our wealth, much of it would evaporate instantly. They can capture factories but more and more of it is IP that a potential invader could just stay home and pirate instead.)
So it is reasonable to argue that Coke has achieved its position on the back of The American Military, but not reasonable to say it achieved it because of US military action.
An awful lot of US influence is down to pure dollar spend, which mostly comes through military related channels.
Is the US' international reach down to its military, or its money?
I would argue that had the last 50 years seen a global spend by the US Forestry Commission equal to that of the US military-industrial complex, then we would see Occupy! marches burning effigies of Yogi Bear.
I think it's down to the military, to be honest (Note: I'm completely biased by my own affiliation with the Navy).
However Coca-Cola may have got their start, they are now a multinational and can't be claimed to have any great allegiance to U.S. interests.
The military is what gives the U.S. the clout to work diplomacy and lead policy amongst the nations. I think the best example of this is the South China Sea which is looking increasingly resource-rich. China has expressed great interest in this region (right up to the borders of the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, etc.), and is currently on a crash program to greatly expand the PLAN (People's Liberation Army Navy).
This is one of the driving reasons that President Obama and the DoD have enacted a "strategic shift" to the Pacific/Asia area because even in areas where the U.S. doesn't have a direct economic interest, the U.S. has indirect economic interests, in keeping natural resources within the effective economic control of their allies.
China has already heavily clamped down on rare earth production as a tool of economic and international political policy, so they've already demonstrated that they are willing to use monopolies on natural resources to their advantage (I'm not saying this to complain; just calling it how it is).
Money has substantial underpinnings in psychology (which is to say its value fluctuates wildly depending on what people think it's worth). And, sometimes you can't simply buy a country off. China is the example now, but for much of the period you discuss the example was the U.S.S.R. The Marshall Plan was successful in helping Europe recover, but the U.S.S.R. didn't allow its satellite nations to participate, and this isn't even going into the U.S. and Allied military efforts that kept the U.S.S.R. from expanding even farther.
When diplomacy fails the last resort for a nation's interests is the military, and the perception that its services are actually available.
I agree with rayiner on this much; Americans on average are very well off compared to much of the rest of the world. I would go further to say that Americans don't understand that their great advantage was never automatic. Not in the past; not in the future.
Now, given that the U.S. military was off doing what it was doing it would be foolish to claim that the follow-on economic effects weren't also important in U.S. hegemony, but I don't think economic factors played the major role.
it's more reasonable to assume that Coca-Cola made most of its money by creating local factories in developing nations which struggled with getting clean water.
This pushed the use of Coca Cola as a health conscious choice. On top of that, the labor was near free by western standards, the syrup price lock is so low, and the shipping is handled by the natives.
Coca-Cola has also been accused of massive civil liberties violations due to their opportunistic nature in South America.
This is usually too fringe for me to post, but http://killercoke.org/
You can't ignore the interrelation of the two. One of the things that made the U.S. rich was our being a superpower allowed us to remodel the world in our image after World War II, making it a market for American goods, and one that operated on American terms. Another was the period of relative peace that we have had over the last 60 years, peace that has been the result of American military hegemony and peace that has allowed international trade and markets to flourish.
If the U.S. had not spent the last 50 years being the dominant military power, do you think it would still be the dominant economy? Money by itself doesn't protect you, it only helps you buy guns. Guns, in turn, let you back every market transaction with the implicit threat of force, and fend of other people who have guns who might find it more convenient to simply take things by force instead of engage in market transactions.
I don't think it's unfair, just morally despicable.
What is despicable is people who think they are entitled to the labor of others for free.
I agree, what's despicable is ignoring the rest of humanity. No, there's no entitlement (whatever that means really, a pejorative term for rights), but I do think you have a moral obligation to help people who need it.
The further away, in relation, a random human is from myself, the less that person's well-being affects me directly. It is, therefore, entirely rational to care less about their well-being than the well-being of humans closer to me.
The morality of that is neither here nor there--and indeed it strikes me as a very corrupt system of morality that rejects one of the most basic of human instincts.
Look, we all want to provide for our loved ones, but to claim that the level of excess we all indulge in is moral is just disgusting. I literally want to vomit at the thought and I'm ashamed to share a citizenship with you—at least I have the grace to admit that I'm a pretty shitty person for not giving back to the world to the extent that I could.
And at least I do SOMETHING (namely, volunteer and give unneeded money to efficient charities) to save the life of someone outside the US, which is more than most people do. I'm pretty sure the view of people suffering in third world countries is economically an entertainment product sold by CNN and christian charities.
