Highlights
id684785516
Una función no reconocida del acuerdo Bretton Woods fue el resguardo del comercio marítimo Transcript: Peter Zeihan When most people think of Bretton Woods, they’re thinking of the International Monetary Fund of the World Bank and the idea of a new financial architecture in the aftermath of World War II. And it was all of that and more. But the core issue was this concept that the United States military would go out and make the global oceans safe for anyone’s commerce, no matter who you were, no matter what you did, No matter where you were selling, no matter who you were partnering with, anyone could go anywhere. That was a fundamental change in the international environment because it allowed countries that honestly had lost the war and lost badly to emerge from the wreckage with trade access As if they were the world’s most powerful empire and could get anywhere at any time. Now, there was a catch there for the Americans to do this for you. You had to sign up to be on our side during the Cold War, and that provided us with the alliance network that we needed to contain and ultimately beat back the Soviet Union. Another characteristic of this structure was that the United States would not invest its economy in this new international network because if it had done that, it would have just been Another conquering empire. So we got this global structure where the United States did the heavy lifting on a security front and allowed this parallel economic structure to happen on a global basis, of which the Americans were at most side participants in. It’s not that we didn’t play at all, but as a percentage of GDP, we remain the least involved economy in the world, especially if you factor out the NAFTA countries modern day, in terms Of total import export, where you’re looking at something that’s less than 5% of GDP, which is, you know, a in the bucket compared to what it is for most other countries.
economía geopolítica internacional
id684786567
El cambio en la estructura de la armada estadounidense le impide cuidar los mares. Transcript: Peter Zeihan You have to go back to the fact that we won the Cold War. And after 1992, we started to have a conversation with ourselves about what’s Bretton Woods to? How do we take this alliance, the greatest alliance in human history and play it forward for another generation or two of American preemits? How do we remake the human condition? How do we spread free market capitalism? How do we improve the rates of human rights? How do we push women’s rights? How do we make the world a better place that we can then leave to our descendants? And the person who tried to get us to have that conversation was George Herbert Walker Bush, and Americans decided that they didn’t want to have that conversation. And instead, we went with Bill Clinton, who was much more focused on North America, much more populist and narcissistic. And from there, we went to W. Bush, and from there to Obama, and Obama to Trump, and Trump to Biden. We’ve just taken steps down that road, despite the variety of policies and personalities that we have seen since 1992. What they all have in common is each one is a little bit more economically nationalist than the one that came before. From an economic and political of view, we’ve moved away from this structure. And while that’s happened, we’ve also changed our military, specifically the Navy, into a form that I would argue is no longer even capable of maintaining the globalized network. We used to have a 600- navy dominated by small vessels that could be almost everywhere at once. And so the idea of keeping the sea lanes open against threats was a viable policy. But since 1992, we’ve steadily reduced the size of the fleet while steadily increasing its tonnage.
economía EEUU geopolítica internacional