I'm not sure about Djibouti.

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.

I was asking about taxes. That is what empires require of their subjects.

Taxes come in many forms. And paying taxes is hardly the only distinguishing feature of an empire. For example, many colonies of the British Empire remained part of the Emprie long after they stopped paying taxes (eg, Canada, Australia). In some case I don't believe they ever paid taxes at all. Yet they immediately sent troops in war, and provided favorable trading conditions.

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.

Taxes do not come in many forms. They are involuntary payments made with jail as the punishment for noncompliance.

So.. an empire has to threaten to put a whole country in jail before it can be an empire? Does it dig up the land and physically put it in prison? Only the leaders? Every single person?

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.

The petrodollar is how the US collects their tributes.

A voluntary exchange of goods or services for money is not a tax or tribute.

I already explained _hours_ ago that I was using the term American Empire semi-rhetorically. It does not matter if you show that the way the US has employed and distributed its power historically do not meet your strict definition of how an empire operates because I'm not cutting my cloth to suit the tailoring of your definition. By many accounts the neo-colonial way in which the US has conducted and continues to conduct itself is imperial.

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...

When we invade countries and depose leaders who threaten to trade oil on something other than the dollar, it's not exactly voluntary.

While I disagree with the comment you are replying to, your comment isn't correct either.

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...