Curious how he described protection of overseas investments and business interests as a "racket", but at the same time enjoyed living in one of the most advanced economics of the world, fuelled by strong business and trade.
This is a lame criticism, because it implies that anyone who disagrees with their home country's policies should just move somewjere else, because they are dirty commie hippies.
He certainly "earned" the rights to his creature comforts, if participation in war is the measure of his dedivation the U.S.A.
I think it's more curious that rich people from all nations benefit from advanced economies, without sending their family members, or themselves in harm's way.
Why is that curious? What is your point? That you need war and the military-industrial complex for prosperity? That may be, but you leave out any argument why that is so. The only one I can think of is a pretty negative view that you need a strong military to get what you would otherwise not get from others willingly, from determining who leads in other countries to open access to other countries' markets, even though it has been proven that free markets don't work well (to put it mildly) when power is very unequally distributed between the parties.
