Our Zoom call this week, for paid subscribers, will be at our regular time: Friday at Noon EDT. Our guest will be Terrell Starr, one of America’s most talented foreign correspondents. Since Russia invaded, Terrell has spent a lot of time in Ukraine, and argued that
Thank you for sharing your comments about the success of the Chinese government in reducing internal poverty and famine, truly one of the greatest successes of any regime in human history. But this success, for many of us, is always weighed against the great repression of the Chinese citizens. We have a tough time balancing the loss of personal freedoms and the persecution of peoples, like the Uyghurs, by the Chinese regime (when it decides a religion or ethnicity poses potential a threat to their power). These reservations, or serious concerns, about the danger of the regime, impede a clear-eyed appreciation of the new cold war and how it will affect the safety of all. I understand that China has not, to date, actively sought to export its repressive governmental practices (for example to Africa where it is extremely economically active). But our serious concerns and even anger about the constant surveillance and repression of the individual by his/her government in China make it difficult to celebrate China's enormous achievements with grace. Nor can we whole heartedly oppose the concerns of the US government in its opposition to the regime.
Recently the Wall Street Journal reported that Saudi Arabia was joining China’s Shanghai Cooperative Organization, a decision that came just a few weeks after the announcement that it had reestablished diplomatic relations with arch-enemy Iran following negotiations held in Beijing under Chinese auspices. For three generations, the oil rich kingdom had been America’s most important Arab ally, and the lead sentence of the Journal article emphasized that this dramatic development reflected our waning influence in the Middle East.
Brazil declared that it was abandoning the use of dollars in its transactions with China, its largest trading partner, following an earlier statement that its president planned to meet with China’s leader in support of that country’s efforts to end the Russia-Ukraine war, a diplomatic initiative strongly opposed by the American government. Geopolitical dominoes seem to be rapidly falling, taking down American influence with them.
Given America’s horrendous budget and trade deficits, America’s continued standard of living is heavily dependent upon the international use of the dollar, especially for oil sales, so these are extremely threatening developments. For decades, America has freely exchanged the government script for goods and commodities from around the world, and if that becomes much more difficult, the global situation may grow dire. During the 1956 Suez Crisis, the threatened collapse of the British pound marked the end of Britain’s influence on the global stage, and America may be rapidly approaching its own “Suez moment.”
Despite American efforts and the shrill support of the global Western media, few countries other than America’s own subservient vassals have been willing to follow their lead and impose sanctions on Russia, further evidence of our greatly diminished international clout.
It always going to be in Saudi Arabia’s self-interest to play the US and China against each other. They need the US as a reliable security partner and they need China as a reliable oil-consumer. No extravagant giveaways by the Biden administration are going to guarantee monogamous affections for long. It’s short-sighted folly to overpay for the illusion of it.
The notion that US and Gulf State relations are based on true alliances rather than a long-standing transactional marriagesof convenience is often overstated. On security matters, cozy relations with the Gulf states allows us to park our 5th Naval Fleet in Bahrain and numerous airbases all over the Gulf so that the US can project power throughout the Middle East and central Asia.
That’s an important asset to President-whisperers in the US foreign policy establishment, but increasingly less so to typical Americans. The Chinese have no appetite to experience their own Afghanistans or Iraqs. The Saudis must know that Americans, on the other hand, never seem to tire of learning the same lessons over and over again.
HAH, retired business executive and free spirit, Aug 24,
Biden has shown he's a cold warrior and an enemy of free markets at a time when the cold war was about over, and free markets were serving consumers almost everywhere. Globalization has created hundreds of millions of jobs around the world. It has not only benfited China, India, Malaysia and Vietnam, but Consumers and producers around the world, and the economies of countries that are exporters to China, from New Zealand to Australia, Canada, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, France and several African Countries. Competition in commerce is significantly safer, better and less costly for the world than Military Competition.
Globalization has also improved human contact through travel, communication, trade and sports.
Globalization has had a nqegative effect on what turned out to be uncompetitive products, producers and technologies, who blamed Globalization for job losses. Most job loses took place in uncompetitive businesses, who, rather than seeking to advance their management, technologies and the skills of their human rsources, sought political protection by imposing tariffs and import restrictions, while labeling competitors as enemies versus, an unhealthy pratice that reduces human capability rather than grow it.
I do not agree here with your statements about the USA and globalization. For the following reasons:
- Globalization is not a zero sum game but a plus-sum game
- Most people who are anti-globlaization or negative are individuals who are not exposed to or having enough interactions with global developments on daily basis
- Most people who vote for politicians as Trump and far-right parties are middle-class more or less
- Globalization as via trade and movements of humans and money benefits many working-class people as well.
- Most jobs in the USA that disappeared during 2010s were due to technological changes and not because of for example trade and migration
- The American federal welfare state is already big and bureaucratic and often supporting and subsiding middle class citizens as in the recent student debt cancellation
Here is one good source that includes lot of research as regarding globalization
Your comment about Biden being an unreliable narrator was unnecessary -- Biden was referring to quarter on quarter growth rates for China's economy, and he was correct. (You were also correct re China's year-on-year rates.)
Beyond that, I don't think you demonstrated (to me, at least) that the driver of key US tariffs under Biden is to hurt our adversaries. Tariffs or restrictions on tech transfer can serve specific industrial policy aims depending on the industry (shoring up supply chains, securing a military edge with certain tech, or boosting key sectors in the US). It seems that your contention about Biden's motive is presumed but not demonstrated.
These kinds of arguments only serve to feed stereotypes about the left being predisposed to seeing the worst in US actions, or Biden's framing. It's unfortunate that you didn't delve deeper.
Thank you for sharing your comments about the success of the Chinese government in reducing internal poverty and famine, truly one of the greatest successes of any regime in human history. But this success, for many of us, is always weighed against the great repression of the Chinese citizens. We have a tough time balancing the loss of personal freedoms and the persecution of peoples, like the Uyghurs, by the Chinese regime (when it decides a religion or ethnicity poses potential a threat to their power). These reservations, or serious concerns, about the danger of the regime, impede a clear-eyed appreciation of the new cold war and how it will affect the safety of all. I understand that China has not, to date, actively sought to export its repressive governmental practices (for example to Africa where it is extremely economically active). But our serious concerns and even anger about the constant surveillance and repression of the individual by his/her government in China make it difficult to celebrate China's enormous achievements with grace. Nor can we whole heartedly oppose the concerns of the US government in its opposition to the regime.
But you are right that what the current US government is doing is wrong in many cases. The next step regarding globalizations is how to unite the world as common polity and planet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFGBNPh26fw&list=PLMWA7z4ynY_P_3Zlo3i6ccIN9sCz68odq&index=4
Recently the Wall Street Journal reported that Saudi Arabia was joining China’s Shanghai Cooperative Organization, a decision that came just a few weeks after the announcement that it had reestablished diplomatic relations with arch-enemy Iran following negotiations held in Beijing under Chinese auspices. For three generations, the oil rich kingdom had been America’s most important Arab ally, and the lead sentence of the Journal article emphasized that this dramatic development reflected our waning influence in the Middle East.
Brazil declared that it was abandoning the use of dollars in its transactions with China, its largest trading partner, following an earlier statement that its president planned to meet with China’s leader in support of that country’s efforts to end the Russia-Ukraine war, a diplomatic initiative strongly opposed by the American government. Geopolitical dominoes seem to be rapidly falling, taking down American influence with them.
Given America’s horrendous budget and trade deficits, America’s continued standard of living is heavily dependent upon the international use of the dollar, especially for oil sales, so these are extremely threatening developments. For decades, America has freely exchanged the government script for goods and commodities from around the world, and if that becomes much more difficult, the global situation may grow dire. During the 1956 Suez Crisis, the threatened collapse of the British pound marked the end of Britain’s influence on the global stage, and America may be rapidly approaching its own “Suez moment.”
Despite American efforts and the shrill support of the global Western media, few countries other than America’s own subservient vassals have been willing to follow their lead and impose sanctions on Russia, further evidence of our greatly diminished international clout.
It always going to be in Saudi Arabia’s self-interest to play the US and China against each other. They need the US as a reliable security partner and they need China as a reliable oil-consumer. No extravagant giveaways by the Biden administration are going to guarantee monogamous affections for long. It’s short-sighted folly to overpay for the illusion of it.
The notion that US and Gulf State relations are based on true alliances rather than a long-standing transactional marriagesof convenience is often overstated. On security matters, cozy relations with the Gulf states allows us to park our 5th Naval Fleet in Bahrain and numerous airbases all over the Gulf so that the US can project power throughout the Middle East and central Asia.
That’s an important asset to President-whisperers in the US foreign policy establishment, but increasingly less so to typical Americans. The Chinese have no appetite to experience their own Afghanistans or Iraqs. The Saudis must know that Americans, on the other hand, never seem to tire of learning the same lessons over and over again.
https://www.americansecurityproject.org/national-security-strategy/u-s-bases-in-the-middle-east/
HAH, retired business executive and free spirit, Aug 24,
Biden has shown he's a cold warrior and an enemy of free markets at a time when the cold war was about over, and free markets were serving consumers almost everywhere. Globalization has created hundreds of millions of jobs around the world. It has not only benfited China, India, Malaysia and Vietnam, but Consumers and producers around the world, and the economies of countries that are exporters to China, from New Zealand to Australia, Canada, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, France and several African Countries. Competition in commerce is significantly safer, better and less costly for the world than Military Competition.
Globalization has also improved human contact through travel, communication, trade and sports.
Globalization has had a nqegative effect on what turned out to be uncompetitive products, producers and technologies, who blamed Globalization for job losses. Most job loses took place in uncompetitive businesses, who, rather than seeking to advance their management, technologies and the skills of their human rsources, sought political protection by imposing tariffs and import restrictions, while labeling competitors as enemies versus, an unhealthy pratice that reduces human capability rather than grow it.
I do not agree here with your statements about the USA and globalization. For the following reasons:
- Globalization is not a zero sum game but a plus-sum game
- Most people who are anti-globlaization or negative are individuals who are not exposed to or having enough interactions with global developments on daily basis
- Most people who vote for politicians as Trump and far-right parties are middle-class more or less
- Globalization as via trade and movements of humans and money benefits many working-class people as well.
- Most jobs in the USA that disappeared during 2010s were due to technological changes and not because of for example trade and migration
- The American federal welfare state is already big and bureaucratic and often supporting and subsiding middle class citizens as in the recent student debt cancellation
Here is one good source that includes lot of research as regarding globalization
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/52342434-open
Your comment about Biden being an unreliable narrator was unnecessary -- Biden was referring to quarter on quarter growth rates for China's economy, and he was correct. (You were also correct re China's year-on-year rates.)
Beyond that, I don't think you demonstrated (to me, at least) that the driver of key US tariffs under Biden is to hurt our adversaries. Tariffs or restrictions on tech transfer can serve specific industrial policy aims depending on the industry (shoring up supply chains, securing a military edge with certain tech, or boosting key sectors in the US). It seems that your contention about Biden's motive is presumed but not demonstrated.
These kinds of arguments only serve to feed stereotypes about the left being predisposed to seeing the worst in US actions, or Biden's framing. It's unfortunate that you didn't delve deeper.