On 6/26/07, Julio Huato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Under which conditions a nation with a significantly lower productive force of labor can retain their military supremacy over nations with a higher productive force?
didn't Vietnam show that it could beat the US on the battlefield even though it had significantly lower productivity? nationalism can beat technology.
I imagine that only under very extreme conditions. A couple of "fortunate" historical accidents wouldn't suffice to keep things on that track. You'd need a long series of short-run accidents (a highly unlikely scenario) for that to situation to perpetuate.
I dunno. If I understand it, it was a couple of cases of extreme luck which allowed George Soros to rise to the top. Geographical accidents allowed the US to rise to the top.
Since I don't have a teleological view of history, I have no problem accepting the *possibility* of a nation with an economy in ruins dominating the rest of the world forever, while the rest of the world has a booming peaceful economy; all as a result of sequence of accidents. But, would I consider that a likely event? Not really. That's what I mean by my referring to the longer-run rule, as opposed to the shorter-run accidents.
I can imagine the US running the world even though its economy is in ruins even though the rest of the world has a booming peaceful economy if the US successfully uses its military might to tax the rest of the world to pay for the military domination. -- Jim Devine / "Bong Hits 4 Jesus."
