[Trump will fail]

[Trump will fail]

Global hegemony is by no means 'free.' Hegemonstrates its price tag. To have hegemony, one must deploy enormous military power in various parts of the world. Underpins that military power, too, is astronomical military spending. The Pentagon's annual budget now stands at around $850 billion, nearly half of Korea's gross domestic product – money beyond imagination. In addition to maintaining and deploying physical strength, a hegemonic state carries various heavy "duty." In the event of war, the United States has to join the war and defend itself in more than 50 countries, including Korea. And it must continually produce "soft power" that reproduces hegemony along with its military spending and defense obligations. Soft power is by no means "free." Foreign development ministries subsidize thousands of media outlets in each country, and give public opinion leaders and reporters in numerous countries, including Korea, an opportunity to visit and train in the U.S.... It may be a pitfall compared to the U.S. economy, but it is a cost anyway. In short, hegemony is a "money-eating hippo."  

So why pay a lot of money and still be "defeated"? It's simple: up to a certain point, there are more benefits to be gained through "defeat" than there are to be spent on it. First of all, the U.S. military is in every important part of the world, so it's protected from foreign investment by U.S. companies. And perhaps the biggest benefit of hegemony is the issuance of global reserve currency. Countries that issue the reserve currency are able to issue government bonds on a currency basis. They have enough money to cover their military and diplomatic expenses. The total external federal debt of the U.S. now is $35 trillion, which is hard to imagine in Korean won. And there's also the privilege, for example, of replenishing the workforce through immigrants. The hegemonic countries have a lot of appeal to the floating population of the immigration world, and their top universities can attract leading foreign talents. So, what's the benefit of "defeat play"?  

The answer is "to what extent"? It's business to sell government bonds to spend money on military spending, to develop weapons with that money, to sell them to their subordinate partners, and to take that money and continue to spin the wheels of the military complex permanently. Marxists call this business model a "permanent armed economy." But at some point, the margins of this business start to drop significantly. First of all, the interest burden that comes with issuing government bonds will make it difficult to bear from some point. Last year, the federal government's interest on government bonds was $1.133 trillion. In comparison, the total amount of U.S. aid to Daewoo Kreina that Trump has put forward has been only $486 billion in the last three years. Interest costs have skyrocketed and are difficult to handle, but it's also a burden that a country that turns the wheels of a "permanent armed economy" must continue to wage war to test and promote its weapons. It's no doubt that American rulers are interested in foreigners who died in their wars, but the money that the U.S. spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan alone has come to more than $4.3 trillion. American companies participated in the privatization of Iraqi oil fields, seized foreign currency and gold reserves in Iraq and Afghanistan, and brought them back to the United States, but no amount of looting is sufficient to cover this astronomical war chest. The military and war chests are largely financed by the issuance of foreign debt, and interest expense on foreign debt snowball... First of all, we need to overhaul this "victimistic business model" that is ineffective for conservative politicians and big businesses who "manage" the United States. That's how Trump emerged.  

First of all, the new "management team" in the United States is in terms of "correcting the business model":

-All defense obligations to subordinate partners are "conditional."

-Reduce state spending, including military spending, as much as possible (nearly cutting costs related to "soft power," such as global pro-American training)

-We're going to reduce the number of civil servants

-At the same time as the tax rate was cut, tariffs were raised to fill the insufficient tax revenue with tariff income rather than issuance of government bonds

-Using competing empires China and Russia as "partners" in terms of investment, etc. at the same time as competition

We have a "tightening" strategy. In fact, in the current situation in the United States, "cutting costs" is probably the kind of route their managers must take. But perhaps Trump's strategy will never ultimately lead to "debt relief" and "revival of America." Once military spending is reduced, the cost of weapons development will automatically decrease, which is actually America's most important and best-selling commodity on the international market. Eventually, it could lose ground to emerging competitors such as China and South Korea in the arms market. Reducing the number of safety officials (such as nuclear safety officers and airport control tower workers) could eventually lead to major catastrophes and huge handling and remediation costs. There is no guarantee that the income from tariffs will be large enough to cover the tax revenue shortfall. Eventually, higher tariffs will lead to higher inflation, which will lead to lower domestic demand, which in turn means a recession. In the meantime, countries that will no longer be able to rely on "protection" from the United States will likely be able to push their new "international order-guaranteed power," such as China. In other words, Pax Americana will disappear into history, but it will not solve America's financial problems and many Americans will become relatively poor. It is my prediction that Trump's "Make America Great Again!" will end in a crash of international standing and the domestic economy.