(1) Note that this article is _explicitly_ about changing the dollar-backed oil trading arrangements we have had up until now and even has the phrase “new world order” in the title.
(2) Another article[0] on the front page at the moment discusses the economic implications of the current rising inequality with “How do those who have less than nothing keep giving to the rich? Simple: they go deeper into debt, deeper into negative wealth. But how can that be sustained over a long time? Debts don’t need to be paid off, but they do need to be serviced.” The answer is historically speaking is with revolution.
Put (1) and (2) together and you do have a bit of a situation you must admit, no? Is it the phrase 'American Empire' that is being objected to? Fair enough, that's a bit of rhetoric on my part but American Imperialism[1] has got its own (rather long) Wikipedia page.
Disagree all you want but tell me why you disagree rather than thumbing that down button :)
[0] https://ergodicityeconomics.com/2017/08/14/wealth-redistribu...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism
edit: explaining the motivation for posting a follow-up
For example, several European states house US nuclear weapons. [1] Japan serves as an outpost against China and North Korea. [2] "Currently South Korean forces would fall under United States control should the war resume. This war time control is planned to revert to South Korea in 2020." [3]
And Vietnam? The south was lead by a series of military governments during the war, which the US was apparently willing to accept. Sure, they pressured for elections, but in the meantime, fighting Communism was more important. [4]
I wouldn't call the US an empire, but they're not exactly a selfless force of protection either.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan%E2%80%93United_States_re...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea%E2%80%93United_Sta...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Vietnam#1963.E2.80.9373
"According to an annual report titled Allied Contributions to the Common Defense published by the U.S. Department of Defense in 2004, Japan provided direct support of $3.2 billion (about ¥366 billion) and indirect support worth $1.18 billion, offsetting as much as 74.5 percent of the total cost.... [in 2017] It said Japan will pay ¥192 billion in the current fiscal year in direct support. U.S."
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/01/31/national/much-j...
That move from China is aimed at undermining this ability. I'm completely not rooting for the Chinese, but the risk is real. If they succeed, the US will need to cut internal consumption by 2.6%, which will hit heavily an already struggling middle class. Not a good prospect.
But. (There's always a but.) I'm not disputing that the US isn't a great economic powerhouse. What I'm getting at is, at what cost.
If the middle-class gets gutted and relative and absolute poverty keeps increasing then we're not really creating a just society, are we? In one of the wealthiest, if not the wealthiest nation ever if we still haven't figured out how to protect the most vulnerable among us then we've a bit of a problem. As some have suggested, maybe basic income is a solution? But to others you may as well have suggested that that dude Stalin may have made a nice omelette even though he broke a few eggs.
And outside the US, what the untenable situation where two countries (neither of which are the US) have to trade oil in dollars. For just how long do you think that arrangement will last? It could be, and has been, argued that some part of the might of the US comes from having its currency as the world currency and part of that is dollar-denominated trade. Cease that and the landscape alters. China knows that. Others know that.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_oil_bourse
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/business/worldbusiness/25i...
The us has been coasting on good will and trump is squandering it. Now that he world doesn't see the us as a reliable partner, we're going to see the rug pulled out from under us rather quickly. China right now looks like a safer bet if you're looking for an ally.
Kuwait paid about $16B after the first Gulf War and continues to pay for US troops based there. It's unclear how much that is, but Japan (for example) pays $2B a year to keep US troops in Japan.
That's independent of things like international trade being executed in US dollars, which is why the US can control World trade: at some point everything needs US dollars. That's why US sanctions are so effective and why people who are very rich and powerful still hate being sanctioned.
Even outside that, paying for troops to stay was often known as tribute.
Edit: in any case I wouldn't actually argue that the US is an empire in the traditional sense. It has been the the unchallenged hegemon for nearly 30 years and before that the leader of half the world for another 40. I think speaking of the American Empire is a reasonable shorthand, even if it misses many subtleties.
That meets no definition of empire I've ever heard of, and I'm not sure what you are even arguing anymore. Are you just trying to find something to be right about?
Come on!
Look outside your idealogical bubble for a couple of minutes, and think about what your point is.
If your point is that the US isn't an empire, then sure - I think everyone will agree it was never the same as the Roman empire or the British Empire.
But the post cold-war US was something, which involved it obtaining a lot of power in many forms. Some of this power was financial and was based on the US dollar being the reserve currency, and even the US's enemies had little choice but to concede to that power.
When the OP said that this is the end of the US's empire, that is what they meant. Think about that - if you disagree, then fine. There are reasons to think they could be wrong (this has been tried before and didn't work then).
But claiming the US is not an empire because it didn't collect taxes (!) as though that somehow invalidates the argument is just wrong.
It's kind of like duck-typing I figure. If it looks like an empire and behaves like an empire it's probably an empire.
The four behavioral characteristics that clinch it for me are: [1] the continued unilateral interference in the sovereignty of other nations either covertly or overtly; [2] the non-participation in international norms; [3] the continued garrisoning of territories in other nations; [4] the historic and current role of the dollar and the US-backed financial systems and institutions globally.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_treaties_unsigned_or_u...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_currency#United_States...
There is a non-trivial amount of oil traded in the euro, and also see [1], [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_oil_bourse
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/business/worldbusiness/25i...