There's a bit to many "whataboutism's" here in what seems to be an attempt to ameliorate the GOP's diaspora of disfunction that struck one to many blows to America's standing on this planet. And, it continues with an elaborate clown show that must add audible laughter within the halls of governance across globe. To the delight of a majority of other country's that haven't pledged some form of fealty to the U.S., the GOP has out fumbled itself so thoroughly as too end our nation's role in guiding peace and prosperity and produced a world that is now overflowing with hate and distrust. Krugman's argument just didn't go far enough. Yours failed.
A thoughtful piece, as I would expect. The one point I’ll raise is that reducing globalized outsourcing, investing in rebuilding some manufacturing capability in the US, is not only about fears of weaponized interdependency. There is value to creating new jobs, particularly for those in the workforce without college degrees. Growing income inequality has hit this group (about 60% of adults) the hardest. It has affected not only financial health but emotional well-being as hope for a career has been replaced by the reality of poor-paying jobs. Admittedly the number of new jobs is small but it is a move forward that offers hope to those who have despaired.
Tl;dr: Globalization (economic interdependence) was the hegemon's economic solution to an international political problem. As the distribution of power in the international system shifts, support for the solution also shifts.
Quick definitional question. In the Cato essay and here-in, am I correct to read your definition of weaponized interdependence as the wider meaning, to include trade-asymmetries writ large, and not the narrower meaning Farrell has put more subsequent emphasis on that emphasizes being at key locus points of networks?
Obviously, you've edited the book on weaponized interdependence, so I trust you're being deliberate in your usage of the term. And to no small extent, most of the pick-up of the term has not followed the nuanced emphasis on networks. Likewise we'll see if Farrell and Newman latest book will shift the discourse into greater realization that the U.S. is a leading employer of weaponized interdependence (broadly or narrowly defined).
But as I understand it, part of the point of the emphasis on networks is that sanctions relating to networks are plausibly more effective than those based around trade asymmetries or the other forms. So given your concluding sentence on the risk of post-neoliberal ideas that lack imperial validity, I'm curious how you think about the definitional question.
There's a bit to many "whataboutism's" here in what seems to be an attempt to ameliorate the GOP's diaspora of disfunction that struck one to many blows to America's standing on this planet. And, it continues with an elaborate clown show that must add audible laughter within the halls of governance across globe. To the delight of a majority of other country's that haven't pledged some form of fealty to the U.S., the GOP has out fumbled itself so thoroughly as too end our nation's role in guiding peace and prosperity and produced a world that is now overflowing with hate and distrust. Krugman's argument just didn't go far enough. Yours failed.
A thoughtful piece, as I would expect. The one point I’ll raise is that reducing globalized outsourcing, investing in rebuilding some manufacturing capability in the US, is not only about fears of weaponized interdependency. There is value to creating new jobs, particularly for those in the workforce without college degrees. Growing income inequality has hit this group (about 60% of adults) the hardest. It has affected not only financial health but emotional well-being as hope for a career has been replaced by the reality of poor-paying jobs. Admittedly the number of new jobs is small but it is a move forward that offers hope to those who have despaired.
Tl;dr: Globalization (economic interdependence) was the hegemon's economic solution to an international political problem. As the distribution of power in the international system shifts, support for the solution also shifts.
💯 endorsed
Quick definitional question. In the Cato essay and here-in, am I correct to read your definition of weaponized interdependence as the wider meaning, to include trade-asymmetries writ large, and not the narrower meaning Farrell has put more subsequent emphasis on that emphasizes being at key locus points of networks?
Obviously, you've edited the book on weaponized interdependence, so I trust you're being deliberate in your usage of the term. And to no small extent, most of the pick-up of the term has not followed the nuanced emphasis on networks. Likewise we'll see if Farrell and Newman latest book will shift the discourse into greater realization that the U.S. is a leading employer of weaponized interdependence (broadly or narrowly defined).
But as I understand it, part of the point of the emphasis on networks is that sanctions relating to networks are plausibly more effective than those based around trade asymmetries or the other forms. So given your concluding sentence on the risk of post-neoliberal ideas that lack imperial validity, I'm curious how you think about the definitional question.
Thanks for the link at the end to the Atlantic article.
1st !