The US can increase the durability of it's economic power by allowing more people to immigrate here. Now that we've proven the value of this geopolitical asset, let's invest in it.
Thanks - both interesting topics. In re: to this - "It is possible that our sanctions and our freezing of Russia’s cash reserves overseas will reduce other countries’ comfort in relying on the dollar-based international financial order." Who knows how this will all turn out, but it does feel like this is a prime opportunity for unintended consequences.
Saying "trusting China is a worse option than trusting us" is an argument I'm not sure will hold in the long run, even though it's true. I think a better argument is to point out that we use these financial sanctions wisely, against bad actors who break widely accepted international rules. These sanctions aren't just a tool of American interests but of global power in favor of stability and the rules-based order. We (and importantly, nearly 100% of our allies and friendly countries) are not acting in an arbitrary manner to punish Russia for selfish or narrow American interests. I hope that's the message here instead of "hey you're stuck with us because the other guys are worse."
I think one problem here is that America clearly doesn’t have a principled commitment to the rules-based international order; we violate it frequently, even if we are prudent about sanctions (and even then, you could look at countries like Cuba and Iran that in many ways aren’t worse than the worst of our allies). I think the case can be made that we have behaved better than most countries would if they were the primary global superpower, but we’ve often used our dominance to invade other countries, and even topple relatively liberal democracies (Iran, Chile). I do think we have the moral high ground relative to Russia, but our moral high ground is shaky and prone to sinking.
I think the point you make holds better for the citizenry, and the popular perception of the legitimacy of the sanctions.
That said- and I can't speak from experience- I am inclined to think that, when running a country, the calculus can only ever really be "aligning ourselves with X is better than Y," especially in the presence of discontinuity in American foreign policy. The publicly professed motive for decisions ostensibly changes every four years. What is continuous is self-interest.
California without nimbyism is unironically the space utopia meme.
Good post today
The US can increase the durability of it's economic power by allowing more people to immigrate here. Now that we've proven the value of this geopolitical asset, let's invest in it.
Thanks - both interesting topics. In re: to this - "It is possible that our sanctions and our freezing of Russia’s cash reserves overseas will reduce other countries’ comfort in relying on the dollar-based international financial order." Who knows how this will all turn out, but it does feel like this is a prime opportunity for unintended consequences.
Saying "trusting China is a worse option than trusting us" is an argument I'm not sure will hold in the long run, even though it's true. I think a better argument is to point out that we use these financial sanctions wisely, against bad actors who break widely accepted international rules. These sanctions aren't just a tool of American interests but of global power in favor of stability and the rules-based order. We (and importantly, nearly 100% of our allies and friendly countries) are not acting in an arbitrary manner to punish Russia for selfish or narrow American interests. I hope that's the message here instead of "hey you're stuck with us because the other guys are worse."
I think one problem here is that America clearly doesn’t have a principled commitment to the rules-based international order; we violate it frequently, even if we are prudent about sanctions (and even then, you could look at countries like Cuba and Iran that in many ways aren’t worse than the worst of our allies). I think the case can be made that we have behaved better than most countries would if they were the primary global superpower, but we’ve often used our dominance to invade other countries, and even topple relatively liberal democracies (Iran, Chile). I do think we have the moral high ground relative to Russia, but our moral high ground is shaky and prone to sinking.
WRD:
I think the point you make holds better for the citizenry, and the popular perception of the legitimacy of the sanctions.
That said- and I can't speak from experience- I am inclined to think that, when running a country, the calculus can only ever really be "aligning ourselves with X is better than Y," especially in the presence of discontinuity in American foreign policy. The publicly professed motive for decisions ostensibly changes every four years. What is continuous is self-interest.