Time for a new age?

Remove all ads!

An excellent point, so I'll hope you understand why it is that every other country takes such an interest in America and its governance, even if ye couldn't care less about how most of the other countries in the world are run. Probably the most basic example is the recession. It was largely caused by America and the world economy is very unlikely to recover until America does. Not that we should blame all our woes on you. The Irish economy had some massive imbalances that were going to have to be corrected at some stage. America merely pricked the bubble and now we have to try and prepare ourselves to be ready once America recovers.

A New Age? I'd be happy enough for things to go back to normal after the Bush years and it seems most Americans are keen to present Bush as an aberration. Obama seems promising but given all the problems at the moment I think he'll be doing well just to nudge things back in the right direction. My main fear for the future would be for America to revert to its isolationist tendencies that can sometimes possess it. As much as I can pick holes in its policies, I think the world does need America to act as 'policeman.' I'm not sure if this aspect is as simplistic as some make out, focusing on the idealistic aspect of it (which does exist). America largely adopted this approach after WWII. A war weary Europe didn't want it so left America to assume it, with the impicit understanding that this would leave America to promote its own interests first while so acting. An American withdrawal from this role would leave a vacuum with others eager to take its place. China, in particular, is eager to expand its influence and seize resources for its own benefit. Other ascendant countries, such as India and a resurgent Russia, are also growing bolder. Whilst it is easy to pick out advantages from retreating to your own borders I think this will leave the world a worse place for America. Though I do see the hypocrisy of others asking America to assume the burden they will not share.

The areas I would like to see improved most? Firstly that Americans will stop seeing the war on terror in terms of good and evil. Some groups, such as Al' Qaeda, are simply nutjobs and can be combated through police and intelligence services. These groups enjoy negligible public support outside their networks. Groups such as Hamas are, however, representative of large groups of people. Though they do contain nutjobs as well. These groups can only be neutralised by addressing the grievances of their supporters. This is a long, difficult process and will provoke strong resistance from the extremist elements but is the only way of removing their threat in the long term.

I would also like to see more emphasis on achieving international cooperation, rather than acting unilateraly. This could be good practice in preparing for the BRICs rise and the end of the US as the single hyperpower.

A greater use and acceptance of the work of experts is an area where Obama has already signalled his intentions by appointing some very high powered advisors. Hopefully this will see an end to the wilful ignorance that too often permeated the Bush administration.

 

Those are some good points Deise. I don't begrudge other nations taking interest in how the US governs itself. Hell, just the fact we have nukes seems enough reason for that to me. What I take issue with is foreign powers acting like either they have a right to influence US governance, or like they have a right to expect us to put their interests first. This isn't commonplace at all, but it has happened more than it should have.

I also agree with your assessment of the results of long-term US isolationism. The last time we tried that, WWII broke out. The time before, WWI broke out. I'm not saying we could have really prevented either, but it isn't a great track record. No, what I was talking about was a brief stint of comparative isolationism, just a couple of years, just to remind everyone of what all we actually do. After that, I would very much like to see the US actually intentionally start developing such responsabilities in other countries. For example, if we could convince the EU to take a sizable share in the 'global policing' role, I think it would only work for the good of most of the world. I'd also like to see how exactly this newly resurgent Russia handles matters before we start treating them like the USSR all over again. Mind you, I don't know much about their internal politics, but if it's substantially improved, they could be an exceptionally strong ally. I don't think anyone but the Chinese want to trust China, and I'm not even sure how many of them want that. I also don't know much about how well India's shaping up these days, except that they are. Basically, yes I'd like to see more international cooperation as well, but we need to make sure that other nations are willing to accept the roles that that cooperation would require of them. So far, it's been iffy.

 

I think things start to get messy at this point. I understand what you're saying but Obama is well liked around the world and seen as very different from Bush. He has a good opportunity to improve relations with the world now but there's no guarantee this goodwill will continue indefinitely. That's a danger of turning inwards at this point, though I appreciate that people might not appreciate the work the US does until they miss it.

I do wish other countries would start doing their share but I can't see the EU doing so. It's not a united entity but a very fragmented bloc with many different views. Their interests often conflict with one another so it's hard to get agreement. Many of the smaller countries also feel that the decisions will be made by a few large ones and that they're just doing other's work. The emerging countries are more interesting. Brazil and India are stable democracries who I would like to see more involved. South Africa should be a very positive influence but is currently reluctant to criticise its neighbours. Russia is agressive but shows some positive signs. China is eager to expand its influence but in many ways is the most worrying. The growth in influence in relative though. I'm sure the US president will remain the de facto world leader for long after Obama is gone.

It wasn't just military isolationism that I meant. From a selfish point of view economic protectionism is probably more worrying. Of the main rivals he faced (Clinton, McCain) Obama seems the most receptive to calls for protectionism. This is very worrying for Ireland given that a massive amount of jobs are provided by US subsidiaries and obviously a lot of our exports would be to the US as well. As a small economy we can't be self sufficient and rely on having a very high level of exports and imports to function. While I'm not an expert most economic theory would agree that free trade is generally better for all involved, including the US. Protectionism is regarded as worsening the Depression. That's in general though and obviously some groups in a country do lose out whilst others benefit. I'd guess that many of these are part of Obama's vote base and some of them would be very well organised.

 

Free trade has hurt the US in that it has allowed a lot of companies to ship resources out of country to cheap work forces and then ship finished products back in. This not only takes jobs out of the US, but also puts us in a trade deficit position, as we 'sell' cheap resources and 'buy' expensive products. I think there's a middle ground between 'free trade' and 'economic protectionism' that the US needs to find, and possibly some other nations as well.

 

If one nation starts with protectionism others will follow and the end result will be that everyone suffers. Might work short term but long term free trade is the only option.

 

Every country needs to find that balance, NOG. The trouble is, Western workers demand rights -- you know, unreasonable* things like a 40 hour work week, the right to get sick without losing your job, wages you can live on, bathroom breaks, and side benefits.

Other countries don't have these things and can cheerfully work their labour force for 80 hours a week at $2 / hour, so of COURSE they are gonna be able to produce stuff more cheaply.

A little protectionism is not that bad a thing, though I am fully aware that it can go too far, as can unions.

*I hope the sarcasm in this sentence is clear!

 

I'm wondering if tarriffs based off of the importing nation's worker rights may not be useful. It would have to be done carefully, and even then I'm not sure it would work, but it may be interesting. I'm sure China and possibly India would throw hissy fits, but I'm not sure how far they'd go.

 

All that would happen would be the civil liberties whiners (I'm not judegmental, not at all ) would be saying that all we are really doing is hurting the workers in those poor countries. According to these idiots, our only solution is to send tons of money to these countries until we are just as poor as they are. Then everything is equal

Ahh, I'm just in a bad mood, sorry gang. But the constant drone of people telling me I am a horrible evil person because I buy a product from the store that wasn't made where they think it should be made. So I kowtow to them and buy from another source, only to have another group of loudmouths tell me that by doing THAT I'm hurting the people I was originally hurting when I made the first purchase. I'm tired of self-appointed activists laying guilt trips on society for stuff that we have little to no control over. I tune these people out now.

 

You had them ever tuned in?

Free markets is a right wing holy cow and one of the things I tend to differ quite a lot from my general leftist leanings. Again, protectionism is lose lose in the long run and seriously how happy would the average consumer be if everything all of a sudden cost 30% more because goods from abroad all of a sudden got extra tarriffs? We live in a global world and no amount of whining can make it better, I feel for the worker that lose his job here or in Detroit but then again I am happy for the worker who gets a job in China and conditions are already improving there and we are running out of low wage workers to exploit. A few decades in the future and I think the rights and conditions for the workers will be similar in most countries and then they will need to cut back on transports (especially considering the oil and energy situation in general) and where will te job oppurtunities go then? Back to the markets.

 

Sure I've tuned in Joa! I feel for the people making a whopping $2 / day working in hellish conditions with no protective agencies to safeguard their rights. I really do. Those people are human beings just like me and my family and friends. But there is not a great deal I can do to help them, and the reason I tune out the activists is that I know it's not my fault those conditions exist and I'm tired of being made to feel guilty for things I didn't do.

I would agree that too much protection is a bad thing -- I hope you didn't get from my previous post that I'm a protectionist -- if you did I was not clear enough and apologize.

 

It was no attack about tuning, was more like why would you listen to other people. Buy what benefits you the most, thats what I do. Can't be arsed to listen on every other weep story. I really have no interest of feeling guilty over my purchases.

 

I wouldn't agree with that. Obviously things are going badly at the moment but the US has had a wonderful economic performance since the early 90's as globalisation took hold. As I said earlier, sectors of the US have suffered. Others have benefited. The US holds a large share of the world's capital and possesses great skill at allocating it. Many foreign plants are US owned with the profits accruing to it. The toys and runners may be made in poor countries but most of the design, marketing, supply chain management, etc. are done in the US. This is the high value stuff and if the world economy is benefiting from trade than there's more of this going on, even if some old jobs are lost.

There are other factors which make trade imbalances worse. Countries which don't allow their currency to float freely on the market have benefitted from a weak exchange rate, the Yuan being an obvious example. Other countries are also scarred by the 1997 currency crises in Asian countries. To guard against a repeat they build up large surpluses so that they have a large reserve of dollars to protect their currency with when they need to. Of course, if every country tries to run a surplus this causes problems.

I am, given the title, trying to say what I hope Obama's appointment will mean versus what I think it will mean. I think there's a good chance that he will put in some protectionist measures but these will be quite limited due to the influence of big business and his economic advisors. The US is so big that while protectionism may be bad it wouldn't be terrible for it. It would hit some of its trading partners a lot more.