alt Hacker News> I've seen you hand wave this away (because of course you would) suggesting the US was rich already.
How is it "hand waving?" Whether or not the U.S. has gained "long-term economic advantages" from its leadership of NATO is a key factual question. It's the central premise of your paragraph about "pax Americana." You can't simply assume that fact is true.
The relative gaps in GDP per capita between the U.S., Denmark and the Netherlands, and France and Italy, were basically the same in 2005 as in 1825: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/bdvazr/top.... France and Italy have had a rough couple of decades since the financial crisis. But in 2025, Denmark and the Netherlands basically 15-20% behind the U.S., which is exactly where they were in 1825.
So what's your response? If your theory is that the U.S. has enjoyed outsized gains from the U.S.-led economic order, why is it the case that the U.S. is in the same position relative to Western Europe as it was 200 years ago?
Replies
Why would I need to respond to a random reddit thread and few figures you throw around?
You're wanting to overturn the widely held orthodox view that pax americana worked as intended. I'm sure there is an enormous amount of literature about that you could read. I don't think the onus is on me to come up with proof that you're wrong and the orthodox view is in fact, correct.
Let's just quote you then, for avoidance of doubt:
"Denmark isn’t an “ally.” An alliance is a mutual relationship. Denmark offers the U.S. nothing. "
You either wrote that or someone temporarily borrowed your laptop but as far as I can see there are no third options. Unless of course you have some creative definition of what you consider to be an ally but until only a short while ago the EU was given a pretty concise description of that word by the US and we all agreed on that definition.
This isn't about money or some kind of ridiculous quid-pro-quo, it is about principle.