Self-Inflicted Wounds

May 20, 2015 12:47 PM

Several recent developments reveal how political and institutional fragmentation in the United States has produced self-inflicted wounds for the U.S. abroad. In all of these instances, America’s ability to exercise economic power in the world has been deliberately curtailed through decisions made unilaterally in Washington by American political leaders.

posted by infini (19 comments total)

Well, you know what they say about economists... ask three economists a question and you'll get five different answers.

You'd really think The Atlantic would have some proofreaders capable of catching a misspelling of United States, though...

...has already replaced the United Sates as the world’s leading power.
posted by Huck500 at 1:09 PM on May 20, 2015 [4 favorites]

The Republicans don’t have a monopoly on undermining U.S. economic power abroad. Democrats recently opposed a bill that would have given President Obama trade-promotion authority (TPA)

So blind reactionary opposition to spending money on any public good, much less international public goods, is the same as criticism of a grab-bag imposition of American broken copyright and patent law on other countries / giveaway to multinational phama/technology megacorps?

It's probably the case that America's broken politics are holding back its leadership on the world economic (or any other) stage, but this article is trying really hard to shoe in a "both sides do it too" narrative.
posted by T.D. Strange at 1:14 PM on May 20, 2015 [26 favorites]

Several recent developments reveal how political and institutional fragmentation in the United States has produced self-inflicted wounds for the U.S. abroad.

They're not self-inflicted wounds for the elite that furnishes and controls most members of Congress - TPP et al will vastly expand corporate power and profits, which is exactly what makes regulatory capture worth paying for.

The idea that the average Congressperson or the average wealthy American gives a rat's ass about national sovereignty, the overall health of a specific economy, or the interests of working people at this point is just so transparently laughable that I don't know how anyone is able to sustain it.
posted by ryanshepard at 1:35 PM on May 20, 2015 [25 favorites]

Really, this is how TPP needs to be thought of - it's corporate statehood. First corporations were people, now they will effectively become a black box state with vast, undisclosed regulatory power maintained by secret, closed courts and with no avenue for challenge or redress.

The majority of Republicans are pushing hard for this, and Democrats are now falling in line. Unless you made more than a million dollars last year, these people in no way represent your interests, and they surely don't give a damn about a notion as quaint as the American republic.
posted by ryanshepard at 1:48 PM on May 20, 2015 [17 favorites]

We're going to get our one-world government, it's just going to be some corporation most of us have never heard of and never will instead of the U.N.
posted by The Card Cheat at 1:58 PM on May 20, 2015 [6 favorites]

Beatrice.
posted by entropicamericana at 2:09 PM on May 20, 2015 [4 favorites]

Canada has embraced NAFTA (despite opposing the initial FTA with the US) and I can tell you that the bigger you are, the less you pay attention to free trade agreements. Since Obama has been in office for example, the US has embarked on de facto protectionism contrary to the spirit, and often to the letter, of the NAFTA agreement. It's a really big problem for junior partners such as Canada and Mexico which simply do not have the resources or clout to battle against a protectionist American President and Congress.

This is not a defense of TPP or free trade, by the way. But the US is a huge market and with the TPP the US will call the shots, no matter what the terms of the TPP are.

The real problem here (if there is one, indeed) is *other* smaller countries that are going to be locked into a trade agreement that they must observe but the imperial United States will not.

Canada is on the sidelines at the moment with TPP, due to efforts to protect, among other things, Canada's dairy industry.

Japan is also ambivalent about TPP, as it is also trying to protect its own agriculture industries (and pharma, healthcare, intellectual property).

So, while Japan's resistance might be considered "noble" by the anti-TPP crowd, It's funny though, because the number-one complaint about Japan is its "antiquated" and "protectionist" policies. "Why won't Japan import (second-, inferior-grade) rice from Thailand etc etc?

Anyway, for Americans, like everything else on this earth, TPP will be a boon. For the rest of us, not so much.
posted by Nevin at 2:52 PM on May 20, 2015 [1 favorite]

The idea that the average Congressperson or the average wealthy American gives a rat's ass about national sovereignty, the overall health of a specific economy, or the interests of working people at this point is just so transparently laughable that I don't know how anyone is able to sustain it.

Davos Man has no fucks to give.
posted by notyou at 3:11 PM on May 20, 2015

Weyland-Yutani: Building better worlds.
posted by clavdivs at 3:56 PM on May 20, 2015 [1 favorite]

So, China created an alternative to the IMF? And the downside is?
posted by zompist at 3:56 PM on May 20, 2015 [1 favorite]

And the downside is?

Something something hegemony, something something American Century.
posted by T.D. Strange at 4:00 PM on May 20, 2015 [1 favorite]

second-, inferior-grade) rice from Thailand

but I WANT to be able to buy jasmine rice in Japan : (
posted by DoctorFedora at 4:03 PM on May 20, 2015

preach it...
Senator Bernie Sanders: The Fight for Economic Justice[*]

also btw...
Younger Americans have a much better view of socialism, and worse view of capitalism

oh and...
America's 'China Consensus' Implodes
posted by kliuless at 4:04 PM on May 20, 2015 [1 favorite]

So blind reactionary opposition to spending money on any public good, much less international public goods, is the same as criticism of a grab-bag imposition of American broken copyright and patent law on other countries / giveaway to multinational phama/technology megacorps?

Are the IMF, IDB, and Export-Import Bank really international public goods? I don't know enough about any of them to say for sure, but I've certainly read a great deal of very sharp criticism of the IMF and how it treats poor countries that have borrowed from it, and I'm guessing given their missions that plenty of complaints are made against the other two. The complaints of the Republicans in Congress seem idiotic and baseless to me, but that doesn't make these specific organizations worth supporting.
posted by Copronymus at 4:11 PM on May 20, 2015

but I WANT to be able to buy jasmine rice in Japan : (

Most of the rice at any 100 yen beef bowl restaurant or sushi place comes from Thailand. It's just not longrain. Anyway, maybe you could grow your own? Kevin in Nagano was growing his own rice for a while.
posted by Nevin at 4:12 PM on May 20, 2015

You can buy it on Amazon, too!
posted by No-sword at 5:34 PM on May 20, 2015

Reading The Atlantic's series of arguments in favor of a bunch of imperialistic neoliberal bullshit I hate has put a bad taste in my mouth. Here's two arguments against the Trans-Pacific Partnership, in support of which Naím trots out that plagiarizing charlatan Fareed Zakaria, from Jacobin:

Against the Trans-Pacific Partnership

Making the World Safe for Big Business
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 6:00 PM on May 20, 2015 [3 favorites]

Anyway, for Americans American Corporations, like everything else on this earth, TPP will be a boon. For the rest of us, not so much.
posted by fings at 6:37 PM on May 20, 2015 [1 favorite]

It's probably the case that America's broken politics are holding back its leadership on the world economic (or any other) stage, but this article is trying really hard to shoe in a "both sides do it too" narrative.

The so-called "liberal media"'s addiction to the lazy "both sides do it" trope is a key part of America's broken politics.

The standard should be objective journalism, not balanced journalism. Objective journalism is, say, pointing out Republicans have used the threat of filibuster to an unprecedented degree and obstructed government. (It is also not objectively true to report that a bill failed "the required 60 votes to pass.") "Balanced" journalism lets Republicans off the hook by pointing out Democrats also filibustered occasionally, so who's to say?
posted by Gelatin at 5:37 AM on May 21, 2015 [2 favorites]